WHICH VERSION IS THE BIBLE?

Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me
and of my words
in this adulterous and sinful generation;of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed
when he cometh in the glory of his Father
with the holy angels.
Mark 8:38

2010
Twentieth Edition
Revised and Enlarged(First Edition 1989)
FLOYD NOLEN JONES, Th.D., Ph.D.

KingsWord Press
Five Milan Hwy.
Humboldt, TN 38343
For more information, phone 877-KJBIBLE

Which Version is the Bible?
© Copyright 1989–2010 • Floyd Nolen Jones
Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc.
All Rights Reserved. This bookmay be freely reproduced inany form as long as it is not
distributed for any material
gain or profit; however, thisbook may not be publishedwithout written permission.
Neither Dr. Jones nor his
family receives royalties or
remuneration from the saleof this book. Its distribution
is not a business venture,
it is a ministry.
ISBN 0-9700328-5-4

TABLE OF CONTENTSABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................V
I. PRESERVATION OR RESTORATION?......................................................... 1
THE KEY ISSUE - PRESERVATION ................................................................... 1
SCRIPTURAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS STUDY .......................................... 4
THE ISSUE - JUST WHAT IS AT STAKE? .......................................................... 5
THE ORIGINAL "AUTOGRAPHS" AND "PRESERVATION"........................... 6
WHAT DOES GOD HIMSELF PROMISE CONCERNING THE SCRIPTURES?8
GOD'S METHOD OF PRESERVING THE SCRIPTURES................................. 10
WOLVES PARADING AS SHEEP ..................................................................... 13
WHEN DID THE WOLVES BEGIN TO DEVOUR THE WORD? ..................... 13
BEWARE - "A LITTLE LEAVEN" ..................................................................... 14
NOT AN "AD HOMINEM" ................................................................................. 15
THE GREEK STRONGHOLD............................................................................. 16
II. BIBLICAL COMPARISONS DEPICTING THE PROBLEM .................... 21
COLOSSIANS 1:14 .................................................................................................. 21
FIRST TIMOTHY 3:16 ............................................................................................. 21
ISAIAH 7:14 ........................................................................................................... 22
ZECHARIAH 9:9 ..................................................................................................... 24
MATTHEW 1:25 ..................................................................................................... 24
MATTHEW 4:10 (9:18; 20:20; MK.5:6; LK.24:52).................................................. 24
MATTHEW 6:13B ................................................................................................... 26
MATTHEW 19:17 ................................................................................................... 27
MARK 1:2-3........................................................................................................... 28
MARK 9:43-44....................................................................................................... 29
MARK 10:21 .......................................................................................................... 29
MARK 16:9-20....................................................................................................... 30
LUKE 1:34 ............................................................................................................. 32
LUKE 2:14 ............................................................................................................. 32
LUKE 2:33 ............................................................................................................. 33
LUKE 4:4 ............................................................................................................... 33
LUKE 9:54-56 ........................................................................................................ 34
LUKE 22:64 ........................................................................................................... 34
LUKE 23:38 ........................................................................................................... 35
LUKE 23:42 ........................................................................................................... 35
LUKE 24:6 ............................................................................................................. 35
LUKE 24:42 ........................................................................................................... 35
JOHN 1:18.............................................................................................................. 36
JOHN 3:36.............................................................................................................. 38i

JOHN 6:35 .............................................................................................................. 38
JOHN 6:47 .............................................................................................................. 39
JOHN 8:1-11........................................................................................................... 39
ACTS 8:36-37 ........................................................................................................ 39
ACTS 20:28............................................................................................................ 40
ROMANS 8:1 .......................................................................................................... 40
ROMANS 14:10B, 12 .............................................................................................. 41
SECOND TIMOTHY 3:16 ......................................................................................... 41
HEBREWS 1:3......................................................................................................... 41
HEBREWS 2:11....................................................................................................... 42
MICAH 5:2 ............................................................................................................. 42
HEBREWS 2:16....................................................................................................... 42
FIRST PETER 2:2 .................................................................................................... 45
FIRST PETER 4:1 .................................................................................................... 45
FIRST JOHN 5:6-8................................................................................................... 45
ACTS 9:6................................................................................................................ 46
PSALMS 8:4-5 ........................................................................................................ 46
III. THE 1881 REVISION..................................................................................... 49
A BRIEF HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS ................................................................... 49
WHAT ARE THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE TODAY?.................................. 50
BASIC DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................... 51
ERASMUS RESTORES THE RECEIVED TEXT (GREEK) .............................. 52
AN ASSESSMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT - THEIR CHARACTERS .... 54
WESTCOTT AND HORT'S INVOLVEMENT IN SPIRITISM........................... 59
AN ASSESSMENT OF ERASMUS ..................................................................... 60
IV. THE "TEXTUS RECEPTUS" ....................................................................... 63
ERASMUS AND THE WORK HE PRODUCED ................................................ 63
TYNDALE TRANSLATES THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS INTO ENGLISH ........ 64
LATER EDITIONS OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS ........................................... 65
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE........................................... 66
WHAT ABOUT ALL THE CHANGES IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE?............ 70
WHY THEN ARE NEW TRANSLATIONS THOUGHT NECESSARY? .......... 77(1) Archaic Words............................................................................................ 78(2) Variant Readings........................................................................................ 79(3) Ancient Greek Manuscripts ........................................................................ 82(4) Winds of Doctrine....................................................................................... 84(5) Greed for Money ........................................................................................ 88
V. THE GREEK TEXT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT .................................... 91
THE MEN WHO CONTROLLED THE 1881 REVISION................................... 91
ORIGEN - THE FOUNTAINHEAD OF THE PROBLEM................................... 92

ii

ORIGEN'S BELIEFS............................................................................................ 94
ENTER CONSTANTINE (288-337 A.D.)........................................................... 97
THE "MYSTERIES" AND THEIR BEGINNING................................................ 98
BACK TO CONSTANTINE .............................................................................. 101
THE COUNCIL OF NICEA ............................................................................... 102
CONSTANTINE COMMISSIONS EUSEBIUS TO PREPARE 50 BIBLES..... 103
THE INQUISITION ........................................................................................... 104
JEROME AND THE LATIN VULGATE........................................................... 105
PUT IT ALL TOGETHER, PLEASE.................................................................. 106
VATICANUS B AND SINAITICUS ALEPH .................................................... 106
ALEXANDRINUS "A" ...................................................................................... 108
THE SCHOLARS VERSUS JESUS - THE BATTLE CONTINUES................. 109
THE NESTLE GREEK TEXT............................................................................ 110
THE CANON ..................................................................................................... 112
THE APOCRYPHA............................................................................................ 113
VI. HOW HORT SEDUCED THE 1881 COMMITTEE ................................. 119
HORT "INVENTS" A HISTORY OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT .......................... 119
Genealogical Method...................................................................................... 120
Conflation ....................................................................................................... 122
the "Fathers" Letters - External and Internal Evidence ................................. 124
The "Early Revision" ...................................................................................... 125
ECLECTICISM AND ITS FRUIT...................................................................... 127
VII. THE HORTIAN-ECLECTIC THEORY REFUTED............................... 133
THE GENEALOGICAL METHOD FRAUD..................................................... 133
THE TEXT TYPE "FAMILIES" ARE ARTIFICIAL FABRICATIONS ........... 136
THE QUOTES FROM THE "FATHERS".......................................................... 139
PAPYRI (C.200 A.D.) SUPPORTS THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS ....................... 142
ECCLESIASTIC REVISION? ........................................................................... 144
GAIUS, THOUGH LONG DEAD, SPEAKS ..................................................... 148
THE ARTIFICIAL NATURE OF TEXT FAMILIES DEMONSTRATED........ 149
ERASMUS VINDICATED ................................................................................ 153
ARE THE OLDEST MSS THE BEST? .............................................................. 155
TO WEIGH THE WITNESSES OR TO JUST COUNT THEM? ....................... 159
HOW TO EVALUATE THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS......................... 161
WEIGH, BUT THEN COUNT ........................................................................... 162
THE IMPORTANCE OF VARIETY IN SELECTING EVIDENCE.................. 163
ANCIENT TRANSLATIONS SUPPORT THE RECEIVED TEXT.................. 164
THE BIBLE OF THE VAUDOIS (WALDENSES)............................................ 167
THE ORIGINAL TEXT PRESERVED HISTORICALLY THROUGH THE TRUE
CHURCH............................................................................................................ 170
IS NATURALISTIC TEXT CRITICISM SCIENTIFIC? ................................... 174

iii

VIII. THE BELIEVING FRAME OF REFERENCE ...................................... 181
THE CHURCH'S HISTORICAL TEXT ............................................................. 181
THE MODERN VIEW OF INERRANCY AMONG MOST CLERGY ............. 184
HOW PRINCETON WAS CORRUPTED.......................................................... 186
HOW THE CONSERVATIVE SEMINARIES WERE CORRUPTED .............. 189
IX. THE CONCLUSION OF THE MATTER .................................................. 195
TECHNICAL OVERVIEW................................................................................ 195
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW............................................................................... 198
TEXT CRITICISM TODAY - THE AGE OF MINISCULES............................. 202
CONCLUDING REMARKS .............................................................................. 205
APPENDIX A - THE PERICOPE DE ADULTERA ....................................... 219
APPENDIX B - THE JOHANNINE COMMA ................................................ 231
APPENDIX C - EXAMPLES OF MODERN CRITICISM ............................ 241
APPENDIX D - HISTORY OF TEXTS TRANSMISSION ............................ 257
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................. 263
INDEX ................................................................................................................... 270

iv

ABBREVIATIONS
A
A.D.

a
AV
B
b.
B.C.
BM
c.
ch.,chs.
cp.
Dd.
ed., eds.
e.g.
et al.
etc.
ff.
fl.
fn.
gen. ed.
ibid.
i.e.
ISBE
KJB/KJ
LXX
mss
MSS
MS/ms
MT
NASV
Nestle26n.d.
NIV

Codex Alexandrinus
Anno Dei (Year of God)
Codex Sinaiticus - pronounced aleph, the 1st letter in the
Hebrew alphabet
Authorized King James Version (1611)
Codex Vaticanus
born
Before Christ
British Museum
circa - about; approximately
chapter(s)compareCodex Bezae
diededition(s); editor(s)exempli gratia - for example
et alii - and others
et cetera - and so forthand the following (verses, pages, etc.)
floruit - flourished, used when birth & death dates are notknown.
footnote
general editor
ibidem – Latin for "in the same place"id est - that is
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
King James Bible (1611)
Septuagint, for the "70" (72) translators
Greek ms of New Testament in small cursive letters. Also
called "minuscules".
Greek MSS or Codex of the New Testament written incapital letters. Also called "majuscules" and "uncials".
A single uncial or cursive manuscript.
Masoretic Text, the God given Hebrew Old Testament
New American Standard Version (Bible) - also shortened toNAS
The 26th edition of Nestle's Greek N.T. (same as NestleAland26 or Aland-Nestle26)
no dateNew International Version

v

n.p.
N.T.
op. cit.
O.T.
p., pp.
q.v.
rev.
rpt.
[sic]
TR

trans.
T.T.
UBS3
Vid. supraviz.
vol., vols.
vs., vv.

no place; no publisher
New Testament
opere citato – Latin for "in the work previously cited"
Old Testamentpage(s)quod vide - which see (that is, see the preceding item)
revision; revised; revised; reviewed byreprint; reprinted
so, thus
Textus Receptus – the "Received Text". The Providentiallypreserved God given Greek N.T. Synonymous, for practical
purposes, with "Traditional Text", "Syrian Text","Byzantine", and "majority text" - although this is a
simplification.
translated by; translator; translation
Traditional Text - a text representing the "vast majority ofauthorities"
United Bible Society, 3rd edition of its Greek N.T.
Vide supra - see above; previous pages or materials in thebook one is reading.
videlicet - namely
volume(s)verse(s)viTO THE READER – THE SOUNDING OF AN ALARM
In the King James Bible, Isaiah 14:12, 15 reads:
How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
... Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell.
However, the New International Version pens:
How you have fallen from heaven O morning star, son of the dawn... but you are brought down to the grave.
Indeed, the New American Standard and all the modern versions read almost
exactly like the NIV (except the NKJV). Yet historically Isaiah 14 has been citedthroughout the Church as the singular biography and identification of Lucifer[G.A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, (Munroe Falls, OH: A.V. Publications,
1993), pp. 40–55]. In verse twelve of the King James, Lucifer is in heaven; inverse fifteen Satan is in hell, and the continuing context establishes that Luciferand Satan are one and the same being. The new versions have removed the name
"Lucifer" thereby eliminating the only reference to his true identity in the entire
Bible – yet the change in these versions is not the result of translation from the
Hebrew language.
The Hebrew here is helel, ben shachar (rx;v'-!B, lleyhe), which translates "Lucifer,
son of the morning" (as is found in all the old English translations written before
1611 when the KJB was published). The NIV, NASB et al. read as though the
Hebrew was kokab shachar, ben shachar or "morning star, son of the dawn" (or"son of the morning"). But not only is the Hebrew word for star (bk'AK – kokab)
nowhere to be found in the text, "morning" appears only once as given in the KJB– not twice as the modern versions indicate.
Moreover, the word kokab is translated as "star" dozens of other times by thetranslators of these new "bibles". Their editors also know that kokab boqer (rq,bobk'AK) is "morning star" for it appears in plural form at Job 38:7 (i.e., morningstars). Had the Lord intended "morning star" in Isaiah 14, He could haveeliminated any confusion by repeating kokab boqer (rq,bo bk'AK) there. God's
selection of helel (lleyhe, Hebrew for Lucifer) is unique as it appears nowhere elsein the Old Testament.
Moreover, Revelation 22:16 (also 2:28 and II Pet.1:19) declares unequivocally that
Jesus Christ is the "morning star" or "day star" (II Pet. 1:19, cp. Luk. 1:78; Mal.
4:2), meaning the sun – not the planet Venus.
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the
churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright andmorning star.
Thus it must be understood that the identification of Lucifer as being the morningstar does not find its roots in the Hebrew O.T., but from classical mythology andwitchcraft where he is connected with the planet Venus (the morning "star").

vii

The wording in the modern versions reads such that it appears the fall recorded
in Isaiah 14 is speaking of Jesus rather than Lucifer the Devil! The rendering of"morning star" in place of "Lucifer" in this passage must be seen by the Church as
nothing less than the ultimate blasphemy. The NASV compounds its role as
malefactor by placing II Peter 1:19 in the reference next to Isaiah 14 thereby
solidifying the impression that the passage refers to Christ Jesus rather than
Satan. But Lucifer (helel) does not mean "morning star". It is Latin (from lux or
lucis = light, plus fero = to bring) meaning "bright one", "light bearer" or "lightbringer". Due to the brightness of the planet Venus, from ancient times the word
"Lucifer" has been associated in secular and/or pagan works with that heavenly
body.
Furthermore, c.207 AD [nearly 200 years before Jerome translated helel (lleyhe) as"Lucifer" in his Latin Vulgate], Tertullian, the founder of Latin Christianity,
undeniably understood Isaiah 14:12–15 and Ezekiel 28:11–17 in the light of Luke
10:18 as applying to the fall of Satan [Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, Roberts andDonaldson, eds., (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1980 rpt.), "Against
Marcion", Bk. II, ch. x, p. 306, cp. Bk. V, ch. xi, p. 454 and ch. xvii, p. 466]. Also
writing in his De Principiis around 200 years before Jerome, Origen (c.185–c.254)
clearly and undeniably applied the fall of Satan in Luke 10:18 to that of Lucifer'sin Isaiah 14 [Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, (1982 rpt.), Bk. I, ch. v, para. 5, p. 259.]
Among the modern versions, only the King James (and NKJV) gives proof that
Lucifer is Satan. Without its testimony this central vital truth would soon be
lost. This fact alone sets the King James Bible apart from and far above allmodern would-be rivals. Truly, it is an achievement sui generis. Indeed, theolder English versions (the 1560 Geneva etc.) also read "Lucifer".
The clarion has been faithfully and clearly sounded (I Cor.14:8). If the reader is
not greatly alarmed by the above, it is pointless for him to continue reading.
However, if concern has been aroused as to how this deception has been foisted
not only upon the Christian Church, but on the general public as well – read on.
The story lies before you.

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words
shall not pass away.
Mark 13:31

viii

A BIBLICAL CREDIBILITY CRISIS
adapted in part from Dr. W.N. Pickering (1990)
If we wanted to be certain that a copy of the American Constitution were perfectly
accurate, we could compare it with the original hand-written document at the
National Archives in Washington, D.C. However, such is not possible with the
New Testament – all of its original manuscripts penned by Paul, Peter and otherapostles in the first century A.D. have disappeared. Nearly all of the copies ofthese originals made during the early centuries thereafter were worn out,
destroyed by the Roman Caesars, or remain undiscovered.
As a result of the discovery of a number of early manuscripts in the 19th century,questions arose concerning the original wording of the N.T. Although thesediffered significantly in many places from the Traditional Greek text, manyscholars concluded they were better copies of the originals because they were"older". This new approach led to Greek texts based largely upon a handful or aminority of early manuscripts.
The original manuscripts of the books of the New Testament were hand copied
over and over again and copies were made from various generations of copies. As
a result, numerous variant readings came to appear in New Testament
manuscripts. Some of these were merely variations of spelling. Others were far
more serious: (1) additions of words or phrases; (2) omissions of words, phrases,clauses, and whole sentences and paragraphs. These variant readings arose
either from the inadvertent errors of copyists, or from the efforts of "scholars"(whether well-meaning or otherwise) to correct or even to improve the text.
It is the task of textual critics to ascertain just what the original reading was at
every point in the New Testament text where a variant reading exists. This they
do by sifting through a massive quantity of manuscript evidence, supposedly withgreat care. However, there are different schools of thought among textual critics,
each with its own set of presuppositions and criteria for evaluating theauthenticity of a reading and the relative importance of a given manuscript.
Before accepting the conclusions of a particular textual critic, one should evaluate
both his theological presuppositions and criteria.
The New Testaments of the King James Bible, William Tyndale's Bible, Luther'sGerman Bible, Olivetan's French Bible, the Geneva Bible (English), as well as
many other vernacular versions of the Protestant Reformation were translated
from the Greek Text of Stephens, 1550, which (with the Elzevir Text of 1624) is
commonly called the Textus Receptus, or the Received Text (TR). It is the"Traditional Text" (T.T.) that has been read and preserved by the Greek Orthodox
Church throughout the centuries. From it came the Peshitta, the Italic, Celtic,
Gallic, and Gothic Bibles, the medieval versions of the evangelical Waldenses andAlbigenses, and other versions suppressed by Rome during the Middle Ages.
Though many copies were ruthlessly hunted down and destroyed, the Received
Text has been preserved by an Almighty Providence.

ix

This "Traditional Text" is also referred to as the "majority text",1 since it isrepresented by about 95 percent of the manuscript evidence. This is in sharp
contrast to the Westcott-Hort tradition (which leans heavily on two manuscriptsof the unreliable Alexandrian Text type), the shaky foundation of nearly all of
today's versions. In the 16th century, Erasmus and the Reformers knowingly
rejected the Gnostic readings of the Alexandrian Codex Vaticanus B and other old
uncial (i.e., all capital letters with no spaces between words = MSS) manuscripts,
whose variant readings they judged to be corrupt. They regarded such dubious"treasures" as the products of scribes who had altered the text to suit their own
private interpretations. They also rejected Jerome's Latin Vulgate as a corrupt
version and as an improper basis for vernacular translations.
The earliest known portion of the N.T. is Papyrus P-52 (until 1995 when the
Magdalen Papyrus was dated as A.D. 66 & found to contain TR/KJB readings!
See p. 207). Also known as "John Rylands Greek 457", this 2.5 by 3.5 inchfragment is usually dated about A.D. 125 and contains John 18:31–33, 37–38.
The earliest extant copy containing a complete book is Papyrus 72. Dated around300, it contains all of I and II Peter and Jude. About 70 Greek MSS have been
assigned a date earlier than 400 A.D., but almost all of them are very
fragmentary. Where these do overlap, significant disagreement is usually foundamong them as to the correct wording. Around 190 Greek copies have been dated
between A.D. 400–800. Most of these are also fragmentary, and they differ
considerably where they overlap. As of 800 A.D., only eight extant Greek MSS
contain all four gospels in essentially their entirety. Of these, only five contain allof Acts, five all of Romans and two all of Revelation.
Of the 3,000 plus Greek manuscripts of the N.T., about 1700 are from the 12th–
14th centuries. They, along with 640 copies from the 9th–11th centuries, are inbasic agreement on approximately 99% of the words of the N.T. As a group,
however, this majority disagree considerably with most of the copies from theearly centuries – which also differ considerably among themselves. This, then, isthe situation that has given rise to the debate over the original wording of the
New Testament. Nevertheless, despite all the variations, nearly all of the wordsof the N.T. enjoy over 99% attestation from the extant Greek MSS/mss. Only
about 2% have less than 95% support and fewer than 1% of the words have lessthan 80% (and most of these differ only slightly).
Yet for the past 100 years, the world of scholarship has been dominated by theview that this majority text is a secondary and inferior text. Scholars haverejected that we have had the true text of the originals all along and have thus
attempted to reconstruct the original text of the N.T. on the basis of the few
1

Recently, several Greek N.T.'s have been published under the designation "Majority
Text". Hence, in this work the term "majority" is capitalized when referring to a single
entity but is left in small letters when the word "majority" is intended with regard to thewhole body of extant Greek manuscripts (i.e., as opposed to the "minority" of the mss).

xearly manuscripts. But as these copies differ considerably among themselves, theresult has been an eclectic "patchwork quilt". The editors of the dominant eclectic
Greek text of today have usually followed a single Greek MSS and in dozens ofplaces they have printed a text not found in any known Greek copy! The
discrepancy between this eclectic text and the majority reading is about 8%. Thatwould amount to 48 full pages of discrepancies in a 600 page text. Around 1/5 ofthat represents omissions in the "minority text" such that it is about 10 pages
shorter than the majority text. Nearly all modern versions of the Bible are basedon this "minority text" whereas the King James is based on an identical twin
brother of the "majority text". This is why so many verses, phrases, etc. familiar
to users of the KJB are missing in the modern versions.
The question is which of these two Greek texts is the Word of God? There are anumber of reasons for rejecting these early MSS as spurious. An inquiry reveals
that the "majority text" has dominated the stream of transmission down throughthe centuries because the Church considered it to be the God given text. It has
the greatest geographic distribution as well as the longest continuity throughout
time. The "minority text" never circulated widely within the Church, and it
virtually disappeared after the 4th century. Further, they have few direct
descendants, demonstrating that they were rejected in their day – not deemedworthy of copying. The undisputed fact that the early minority copies not only
differ from the majority but also differ significantly among themselves
undermines their credibility as valid witnesses to the true text.
It is often stated that no matter what Greek text one may use no Christian
doctrine is actually affected, hence, the whole controversy is but a "tempest in ateapot". Not so, for although as many as half of the differences between the"majority" and "minority" texts be termed "inconsequential", about 25 pages ofsignificant discrepancies remain – and the "minority" omits words from the textthat total 10 pages.
Moreover, the "minority text" has introduced some unequivocal errors whichmake the doctrine of inerrancy indefensible. For example, Matthew 1:7 and 1:10
list Asaph and Amos, two non-existent kings, in Christ's genealogy whereas theTraditional Text correctly reads "Asa" and "Amon". Luke 23:45 has a scientificerror in the Minority reading. Here it is stated that the sun was eclipsed (Gr.
eklipontos) at Christ's death, but this is impossible as the Passover always occurs
during the time of the full moon. An eclipse of the sun can occur only during the
new moon phase. The T.T. reads "the sun was darkened" (eskotisthe). The
Minority Text of John 7:8 relates Jesus' telling his brothers that He is not goingto the feast; then two verses later, He goes. No contradiction exists in the T.T.
which records Jesus as saying "I am not yet going".
The result of this is that although most major Christian doctrine is not at risk
(though several such as eternal judgment, the ascension and the deity of Jesus
are significantly weakened), two are. Total havoc is played upon the doctrine ofxi

Divine Inspiration due to the plain errors of fact and contradictions incorporated
in the eclectic text of the N.T. Divine inspiration becomes relative, and thedoctrine of the Scriptures being the infallible deposit of God's Word to man
becomes untenable.
Thus, modern scholarship has perniciously undermined the credibility of the New
Testament text. This credibility crisis has been forced upon the attention of thelaity by the modern versions that enclose parts of the text in brackets and add
numerous footnotes that are often inaccurate and slanted which raise doubt as tothe integrity of the text. Moreover, this credibility crises is being exported aroundthe world through the translations and revisions of the N.T. that are based on theeclectic text.
It is essential for the reader to understand that the school of modern textual
criticism, which has produced the eclectic "critical text", is founded on the premisethat the true text of the Bible has been lost and must be reconstructed by"scientific" means. The students of this academy have no faith that God haspreserved the very words of Scripture and thus refuse to embrace the text
historically used by the believing Church since the time of Christ Jesus' Apostles.

xii

FOREWORD
It was never the author's intent to produce a book or even a manuscript. The
effort before you seemed to just "come about". After years of study on the subject,lectures were given at churches, Bible studies, and a Bible College. Prior to these
discourses, materials had been gathered over the years from numerous sources
and places – from major researchers and text books presenting both sides of theissue at hand to pamphlets, articles, library "raids", small clips and/or lengthy
documents from pastors, expositors, and laymen as well as data obtained frompersonal conversations, telephone discourses and written correspondence fromthe States as well as Europe.
With no thought of ever publishing, what began to evolve was a somewhat orderly
assimilation of "private notes". These consisted of what was regarded as the most
germane information relevant to the question of textual criticism and Bible
faithfulness. Sometimes only several sentences were taken from a source, othertimes a paragraph or so and, occasionally, pages. But a major portion of thesenotes consisted of small disjointed fragments of information gleaned and"squirreled" away from the various sources. No written creation was to be theend result of this endeavor; the only design being to become enlightened and to"get to the bottom" of the matter for one's own information and peace of mind.
Thus, often no complete formal reference and occasionally no source at all wasrecorded in the growing stack of notes as there was no contemplation of everproducing a formal dissertation, thesis, apologetic etc.
The author then began to better organize his "accumulated ignorance". It was
during this time that opportunities to lecture began to "crop up". The next phase
was to have the taped addresses transcribed into the computer's word processor
for permanent storage, additions, rearranging and subsequent referral andretrieval. It was hoped that this would also facilitate "trying to locate" essentials
for, with the passing of time, it is easy to forget sources.
Prior to and concomitant with this project, a steady stream of inquiries began tobe received relevant to written material on the subject other than thoserecommended at the lectures and on the numerous tapes given away. All seemed
clear. Upon request, we would simply send out copies of our personal notes
directly from the computer. However, about half way through editing thetranscribed tapes, it became apparent that with only very minor effort (a personalstatement or challenge here and there) a more vital manuscript could be
produced. It could then be freely distributed to those at our Bible studies as wellas those requesting from hearsay or having heard the tapes. Again, no formal
treatise was ever contemplated hence formal documentation with regard tofootnotes, references etc. was not always cited. Indeed, this became well near
impossible for during a move prior to the inception of the project the box
containing most of the said notes and citations was misplaced and believed lost.
Most of those few that remained or could be recalled were incorporated beingxiii

mainly intended for the benefit of this author. Recently, however, a folder was
found so that after nearly six years many of the missing references wererecovered and have been included in the seventh edition onward. Thus, the story
lies before you.
Appreciation by the author is herewith expressed to the many from whom I havegleaned, compiled and adapted information. In view of the above, the author
trusts that any omission of a source will be accepted as being neither intentional
nor with malice. To have done more was not only too long after the fact but theseveral European libraries from whence much of the research was conducted wereno longer feasibly accessible. Still it is hoped that the original intent of sounding
the alarm and alerting the unsuspecting church may be met in some small
measure by the effort contained herein. The student wishing to more fullyacquaint himself with the issues found within this treatise should consult thematerials listed in the bibliography, especially those of Burgon, Hoskier, Nolan,
Hills, Pickering, Fuller, Van Bruggen, Waite, Green, Moorman, and Letis.
Several others are also exceptional but very difficult for most to locate.

Floyd Nolen Jonesxiv

I. PRESERVATION OR RESTORATION?
THE KEY ISSUE – PRESERVATION
Gentle reader, may the LORD grant you patience and grace to perceive
the issue which will be unfolded before you to the end that you may begrounded and established.
The following small sampling depicts omissions that are commonplacein modern versions. These omissions often diminish basic doctrines. The
New International Version, which we have used as a representative, has
somewhat fewer omissions than the New American Standard, RevisedStandard, New English, etc. Yet even in the NIV, the deletions are
considerable and noteworthy. The earnest inquirer can determine forhimself whether the NIV has the same authority and reverence as the
Authorized Version. None of the boldfaced/underlined words below
appear in the NIV text (1978 edition, as to the untrustworthiness of the
NIV, see p. 128, they are also missing in the NAS except for Mat. 23:14
and even it is placed in brackets and challenged in the margin).

King James Bible

New International Version

COL 1:14 In whom we haveredemption through his blood,even the forgiveness of sins:

In whom we have redemption, theforgiveness of sins.

MAT 5:44 But I say unto you,Love your enemies, bless themthat curse you, do good to themthat hate you, and pray for themwhich despitefully use you, andpersecute you;

But I tell you: Love your enemies
and pray for those who persecuteyou.

MAT 9:13 …for I am not come tocall the righteous, but sinners
to repentance.

…For I have not come to call therighteous but sinners.

1CO 5:7 Purge out therefore theold leaven, that ye may be a new
lump, as ye are unleavened. For
even Christ our passover issacrificed for us:

Get rid of the old yeast that you
may be a new batch without yeast
as you really are. For Christ our
Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

1

Preservation or Restoration

chapter 1

King James Bible

New International Version

MAT 19:9 … Whosoever shall put
away his wife, except it be forfornication, and shall marryanother, committeth adultery: andwhoso marrieth her which is put
away doth commit adultery.

… anyone who divorces his wife,
except for marital unfaithfulness
and marries another woman
commits adultery.

MAT 20:16 So the last shall befirst and the first last: for many becalled but few chosen.

So the last will be first, and the firstwill be last.

MAT 23:14
Woe unto you,scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
for ye devour widows' houses,and for a pretence make longprayer: therefore ye shall receive
the greater damnation.

———

MAR 10:21 …and give to thepoor, and thou shalt have treasure
in heaven: and come, take up the
cross, and follow me.

…give to the poor, and you will
have treasure in heaven. Then
come, follow me.

MAR 10:24 …Children, how hard
is it for them that trust in riches
to enter into the kingdom of God.

…Children, how hard it is to enter
the kingdom of God.

MAR 11:26 But if ye do notforgive, neither will your Father
which is in heaven forgive yourtrespasses.

———

JOH 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto
you, He that believeth on me hatheverlasting life.

I tell you the truth, he who believes
has everlasting life.

1TI 6:5 Perverse disputings of menof corrupt minds, and destitute of
the truth, supposing that gain isgodliness: from such withdraw
thyself.

And constant friction between menof corrupt mind, who have been
robbed of the truth and who thinkthat godliness is a means tofinancial gain.

2

Preservation or Restoration

chapter 1

One need neither know Greek nor consult scholars or pastors to discernthat the underlined words in the preceding passages are indeed Holy
Scripture.
The disparity revealed is obvious, real, shocking, andsignificant. The purpose of this book is to expose their existence as wellas the story of how these and many more God-given words have been
deleted, transposed, etc. in today's "Bibles". Even in fundamental circles
the issue relating to the various modern translations of the Bible iscontroversial. Our reader must see that it is not merely a question of"inspiration". The crux is that of preservation. Has God preserved His
Word perfect for us today, or was it only perfect in the "original"
autographs? If God has not preserved His Word perfectly, we must
assume that we are preaching and teaching from a book that is notcompletely reliable as the "original" autographs are no longer accessible.
If we believe that the Bible is still the inerrant Word of God, we mustthen deal with the problem of determining which version is the true Wordof the Living God. Logic dictates that two opposing statements cannot
both be true (we reject the Hegelian Dialectic). Therefore, two contradicting "Bibles" cannot both be the inerrant Word of God. This author
proclaims from the outset that the "King James" ("Authorized Version") is
the Word of God faithfully translated into the English language and that
it is our authority in matters of conduct and faith. We do not mean thatits translators were "inspired" by God in the same sense as were Isaiah,
Moses and Paul. Our position is the same as the believing Church held
for over 300 years – that, unbeknown to them, God was providentiallyguiding these translators such that they produced a verbal, plenary,inerrant translation. Furthermore, as the modern translations since1881 often differ significantly from the King James Bible in wording aswell as doctrine, and since two conflicting texts cannot be inerrant, thereader must of necessity make a choice. That which follows is intended toassist the seeker to clearly discern the truth of the matter for himself.
Moreover, that which follows is not intended to be an intellectual treatise.
The uncompromising stand is taken herein that God gave us His pure
Word in the original autographs, and that He has preserved it in its pureform unto this day – and will continue so doing forever. Indeed,
preservation is the only issue separating the Biblicist1 from other1

Floyd Nolen Jones, Chronology of the Old Testament: A Return to the Basics, 18th ed.,rev. & enl., (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2009), p. 3. By "Biblicist", this author does
not merely refer to a fundamentalist or a Biblical scholar as many dictionaries so define.
Much more is intended. The word connotes one who, while taking both the immediate
and the remote context into account, interprets and believes the Word of God literally.
This necessitates that the person so designated has chosen to believe God's many3

Preservation or Restoration

chapter 1

professing Christians in this matter; yet, the traditional viewpoint has
always been that God not only gave mankind His pure Word but that He
also assumed the oversight of its preservation as well. Over the years,
this position has deteriorated and the contemporary view is that God has
not protected the Scriptures, that they are not available in a pure form,
and that this necessitates their recovery by reconstructing them from theGreek manuscripts which have survived to this day.

SCRIPTURAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS STUDY
The purpose of this study is biblically oriented for the Lord tells us that
we must contend for the faith.
Beloved, ... it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you thatye should earnestly contend for the faith ... (Jude 3)

This is what we, by God's grace, are going to do – contend for the faith.
No one has to defend Jesus or the Word of God. God is perfectly capableof defending Himself and His Word. Nevertheless, He tells us to contend
for the faith as there is a great issue before us today. The question is –where is the Word of God? Which version is the real Bible? Why do thedifferent versions not read the same? These are good questions and they
beg to be answered.
Other Scripture pertinent to this inquiry may be found in II Tim. 2:23–26:
But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender
strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto
all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose
themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to theacknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of
the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Many Christians have been taken captive by the devil concerning theBible manuscripts. As will be revealed, the questions regarding thereliability and authenticity of the Word of God are neither foolish nor
unlearned. The ultimate purpose in all of this is to restore – to meekly
promises that, despite all textual criticism objections to the contrary, he would foreverpreserve His infallible Word. Moreover, the meaning intended to be conveyed by thisword carries with it the concept that such a person trusts that the Hebrew and Greek
Textus Receptus (the Authorized Bible) which is today at his disposal is a fulfillment of
those promises. Sadly, even among the pastors and seminary professors, most of today'sconservative evangelical Christians do not qualify to bear this appellation which many inthe not too distant past bore, counting the cost while enduring the shame.

4Preservation or Restoration

chapter 1

instruct those who are either in error or simply do not understand theissue with regard to the various translations, in order to bring them tothe truth:
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried
about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth inlove, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:(Eph.4:14–15)

So that everybody may grow up – we are attempting to assist in thatprocess but in so doing some things have to be said which may seem
hurtful for the moment. It is not our intent to do so.

THE ISSUE – JUST WHAT IS AT STAKE?
God teaches us that the purpose of Scripture is to lead us to Christ
and then to guide our lives (John 5:39–40). God did not give the
Scriptures for the purpose of scholarly intellectual exercise. Yet that iswhat they are being used for by many. This is one of the major problems
plaguing the Church today. As we enter this study, we need to consider
carefully the following questions:1
1. Would God inspire a text and then allow it to become lost?
Within our diverse denominational backgrounds are found various
confessions of faith. These statements of faith concerning the Holy
Scriptures, particularly within conservative evangelical backgrounds,
always say something to the effect that we believe that God gave theoriginal Scriptures inerrant. We profess to believe in the originals, thatthey were divinely inspired by God – God breathed. Now we say that
intending it as a statement of faith, but we shall soon come to see that it
is in reality a statement of unbelief ! This study is designed to bring us
to grips with this issue. But first, the second question:
2. If God did inspire a text, would He not preserve it?
The New Testament was written in Greek whereas the Old Testament
was mostly authored in Hebrew. It may surprise many to learn that
there are no original manuscripts of the Bible available today. The Old
1Peter S. Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, (Pensacola, FL:
Pensacola Bible Press, 1970), p. 29. Whereas Dr. Ruckman is often polemic and his
position on double inspiration is altogether wrong as well as untenable; his threequestions here are insightful.

5

Preservation or Restoration

chapter 1

Testament scribes destroyed the scrolls upon which Scripture waswritten as they became worn, and "dog eared" from so much handling.
When they copied out a new one, they destroyed the old so that theearliest Old Testament manuscript now in existence is dated about
900 A.D. This is called the Hebrew Masoretic Text. It was the earliest
witness to the text of the O.T. that we possessed until the discovery of the
Dead Sea Scrolls which contain some parts of the Old Testament,
especially Isaiah.
Likewise, we possess no "original" New
Testament manuscripts – none of the "autographs" which the apostles
wrote have been preserved. This brings us to the third question.
3. Could we expect counterfeits of the originals to be in circulation?
Is there someone who has always hated God's Word, wanted to destroy it,
and has attempted to cloud man's mind and heart about its validity? Inother words, as we read the Bible, is there any evidence that somebody
has founded a "Yea, has God said" society? According to Genesis 3:1,
Bible corruption began with Satan. Satan is the original Bible revisor.
When he confronted Eve in the garden, he added to God's Word, hesubtracted, he diluted and finally substituted his own doctrine for thatwhich God had said. We find this occurring today. People are trying to
add books to the Old and subtract words from the New Testament.
Nothing has changed. We need to understand that the devil is promoting
this continuing attack on the Word of God.

THE ORIGINAL "AUTOGRAPHS" AND "PRESERVATION"
We are expected to believe in the "INSPIRATION" without believing in
the "PRESERVATION" of the Scriptures. We are being asked to believein the inspiration of the "originals" without believing in the preservationof the text of the Scriptures. It is a statement of unbelief when we saythat we only believe that the original autographs were inspired. What wereally are saying is that we do not believe that we have the infallible
Word of God on this planet, or at least in our hands, at this moment. Let
us consider that statement scripturally:
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which areable to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in ChristJesus. 16All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all goodworks (II Tim.3:14–17).

6

Preservation or Restoration

chapter 1

Here God tells us His purposes in giving us the Scriptures: "...fordoctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". Do
we actually believe that God allowed them to become lost after giving
them? If so, how could He use them to accomplish these purposes?
Now we know that we do not have an original. The question is has God
preserved His Word – the original text – although not the original piece of
paper or vellum on which it may have been written?
The observant reader will note that in the above cited verses given
through Paul to Timothy no reference is being made with regard to the"ORIGINAL" Scriptures. Look at verse 15. Paul says to Timothy, "from achild you have known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make you
wise unto salvation". Paul is obviously not speaking of the "ORIGINAL"
New Testament Scripture. Second Timothy was penned about A.D. 65.
Further, Timothy was old enough to join Paul and Silas c.53 A.D. (Acts
16:1–4). Thus, when Timothy was a child, there was no New
Testament collection of Scripture anywhere.
Nor was Paul
speaking of the "ORIGINALS" of the Old Testament for there was not an
original Old Testament piece of paper or vellum extant at that time.
Wrestle with this! Come to grips with it! These are the verses uponwhich many of us base our faith and say we believe in the "ORIGINALS".
Yet these very verses are not speaking of the original manuscripts!
But are the copies inspired? The Bible itself clearly teaches that faithfulcopies of the originals are also inspired.1 The word "Scripture" inII Timothy 3:16–17 is translated from the Greek word "graphé" (γραφή).
Graphé occurs 51 times in the Greek New Testament and at every
occurrence it means "Scripture" – in fact, it usually refers to the Old
Testament text.
A perusal of the N.T. reveals that the Lord Jesus read from the "graphé"in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luk.4:21) as did Paul in the synagogue at
Thessalonica (Acts 17:2). The Ethiopian eunuch, returning home fromworshipping at Jerusalem, was riding in his chariot and reading a
passage of graphé (Acts 8:32–33). These were not the autographs thatthey were reading; they were copies – moreover, copies of copies! Yet theWord of God calls them graphé – and every graphé is "given byinspiration of God" (II Tim.3:16). Thus, the Holy Writ has testified and1

Edward W. Goodrick, Is My Bible the Inspired Word of God, (Portland, OR: Multnomah
Press, 1988), pp. 61–62. It should be observed that here we are speaking of copies of theoriginal Hebrew and Greek text – not translations (see my p. 3)

7

Preservation or Restoration

chapter 1that testimony is that faithful copies of the originals are themselves
inspired. Selah!
Therefore, it all comes down to a promise given by God – that He would
preserve the text which He gave us. Timothy never saw an original when
he was a child of either the Old or New Testament, yet in verse 16 Godsays that what Timothy learned as a child was given by inspiration of
God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, that the manof God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Now if
God were talking about something which had been lost and/or is nolonger true and accurate, why did He give verse 17?

WHAT DOES GOD HIMSELF PROMISE CONCERNINGTHE SCRIPTURES?
Let us examine some verses where God has promised both to give andprotect His Word.
"Then said the Lord unto me, Thou hast well seen: for I will hasten myword to perform it". (Jer.1:12)

Here God says He is watching over His Word to perform it – to make allthat He has said come to pass.
Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not
pass away". (Mark 13:31)

God did not promise to keep the original piece of material upon which His
words were given. He says His Words SHALL NOT PASS AWAY.
Therefore, this promise demands that we still have them on planet earth.
Jesus also says, "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of mywords in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Sonof man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with theholy angels". (Mark 8:38)

Why this verse if God has not preserved His Word?
"But the word of the Lord endureth forever". (I Pet.1:25)

This is a direct quote of Isaiah 40:8. God has said that His Word will
endure forever! He did not promise that the original piece of paper, rockor vellum would exist forever but that He would preserve the Word –forever.

8

Preservation or Restoration

chapter 1"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth; but the word of our God shallstand for ever". (Isaiah 40:8)"…for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name". (Psalm 138:2)

Look at that! God says He has magnified His Word above His name!
That is incredible for supposedly THE name was so sacred to the Jews
that they did not even pronounce it.
Jesus said "...and the Scripture cannot be broken". (John 10:35)

Thus, on the basis of God's many promises we declare and proclaim to
you that we have in our hands the absolutely infallible, inerrant Living
Word of Almighty God – that God has promised to keep His Word asrevealed through these Scriptures. But there is more!
"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace ofearth, purified seven times. Thou shall keep them, O Lord, thou shallpreserve them from this generation forever". (Psa.12:6, 7)This is a promise from God! Christian, do you believe it? He says He will
preserve it. He did not just promise to give the originals pure and freefrom error – He promised to preserve the text forever!
"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth
him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the lastday". (John 12:48)

Since God's Word will judge us, are we to believe that God will judge us
by something which He meticulously gave us and then lost along theway? Would it be just and fair of God to judge us with these words if they
are no longer trustworthy – to hold us accountable when our guide is not
100 percent reliable?
In Matthew 5:18, Jesus said not "one jot or one tittle" shall change in the
Word of God. Specifically, He was speaking of the Old Testament. We
are being taught today that perhaps the Old Testament is not true, that
it is full of contradictions, scribal errors, etc., but Jesus said that it wastrue and unerring – even to the smallest detail – and He was notreferring to the originals, but to copies of copies of copies.
"Do you not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that
accuseth you, even Moses in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses,
ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his
writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:45–47)

9

Preservation or Restoration

chapter 1

Was Jesus speaking of the "originals"? No, for they did not have theoriginals. They had copies of copies of copies of the originals yet Jesus
said "not one jot or one tittle" had been changed. If God has only
promised the "ORIGINALS" to be pure then Jesus erred in His
assessment of the Scriptures.
Should these statements of Jesus
concerning the Scriptures be inaccurate then He is not Lord, no longer all
knowing, no longer all God.
"Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: andthey are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye
might have life". (John 5:39–40)

Again, the ultimate purpose of the Scriptures is to lead us to Christ – andthen to guide our lives. If the Scriptures are not accurate, if they havebeen changed or altered, if they have been lost so that we no longer havethe Word of God, how can we come to Christ for they are the Holy Spirit's
implement to testify of the Lord Jesus.
As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, we have Scripturally
demonstrated that faith in the preservation of the text is a basic
Bible doctrine. Furthermore, the context of these many promises is notthat God's Word is to be preserved in a jar somewhere in a cave or desert,
lost for hundreds of years waiting to be found and restored to thebelieving remnant of the Church. The context is very clear in Second
Timothy 3:16–17 that the inspired Word was given by God as a deposit to
the Body of Christ "that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly
furnished unto all good works". Therefore, for God to accomplish thisstated purpose for His having given us His Word – it must remain
accessible to the disciples of the Lord, Christ Jesus!

GOD'S METHOD OF PRESERVING THE SCRIPTURESIn selecting Hebrew and Koine1 (κοινη = common or everyday) Greek forthe languages in which He would originally give the Bible, God revealed
His wisdom, foreknowledge and power. Both of these tongues became"dead languages" within several hundred years after each respective
canon was established. By this, the words became "frozen in time". Noneof the words or their meanings could change. They were, as Latin, dead1

A dialect of the Greek language that flourished from the time of Alexander the Great tothe barbarian invasions which overtook the Roman Empire after the 4th century A.D. It
was replaced by "Byzantine" Greek until 1453 at which time the "Modern" Greek stage
superseded it. Koine is singularly the language of the N.T.

10

Preservation or Restoration

chapter 1

languages from which one cannot subtract or add. In contrast, English isa living language and as such new words are constantly being added andold words remain in a state of flux. Their meanings may change or takeon new or different connotations.
In Old Testament days, the Levitical priests copied and preserved the
Living Words of God. Throughout Scripture, the scribes were of the tribeof Levi (Mal.2:7; Deu.3l:25; Deu.17:18). Ezra the priest was also "theready scribe" of Israel (Ezr.7:1–11). This method of preserving the text
was extremely successful as the Lord Jesus bore witness that not "one jotor tittle" had been altered in the 1500 years from Moses to His day.
As to the accuracy of the Hebrew Old Testament in our day, Bishop
Kennicott did a study of 581 manuscripts of the Old Testament which
involved 280,000,000 letters.1 Out of that 280,000,000, there were
900,000 variants. Although seemingly large to the reader, it is only one
variant in 316 letters which is only 1/3 of 1%. But there is more. Of
those 900,000 variants, 750,000 pertain to spelling – whether the lettershould be an "i" or "u". This has to do with vowel points for the purposeof pronunciation which were supposedly added c.600 A.D. by a group of
Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes. Thus we are left with only
150,000 variants in 280,000,000 letters or only one variant in 1580
letters, a degree of accuracy of .0006 (six ten thousandths). Indeed, mostof those variants are found in only a few manuscripts; in fact, mostly injust one corrupted copy.
The Dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah agree with the Hebrew Masoretic Text
(the Hebrew Old Testament along with the vowel points to aid inpronunciation). The earliest extant Masoretic Text is dated c.900 A.D.
Almost no changes have occurred in the Book of Isaiah. Isaiah 53, forexample, contains only one word of three letters which is in doubt after
nearly eleven hundred years of copying. In a chapter of 166 words, only
17 were different – 10 were spelling, 4 were conjunctions.
Actually, the Masoretic Text is the true text, not the Dead Sea Scrolls,
even though the Scrolls are more than a thousand years older. The Dead
Sea material was not written by Jews who were given the charge by God
to protect them. They were not of the tribe of Levi. They were Essenes, aJewish cult of ascetics whose teachings were rife with heresies.
1

Rene Pache, Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, (Chicago, IL: Moody Bible Institute,1969), pp. 189–190.

11

Preservation or Restoration

chapter 1

Similarly, the Septuagint1 manuscripts exhibit considerable significant
differences among themselves and disagree with the Hebrew Masoretic
Text in many places. Both cannot be correct. As the Hebrew Masoretic
text is the inerrant, infallible Word of God – the Septuagint should beseen as spurious and rejected. We cannot even be certain that the LXX
which we have extant today (c.350 A.D.) is a faithful reproduction of thec.260 B.C. original (if such an early translation actually ever existed in
the first place).
But in the New Covenant, all become priests through the new birth inChrist Jesus. As in the Old Covenant, God gave the New Testament text
into the hands of the priesthood of believers, both laymen and elders. The
early Christians copied, wrote and preserved it. Most of the early
Christians were not wealthy. They often wrote on paper which would becomparable to that of a daily newspaper. Most were not trained scholars
or scribes, but they copied with fear in their hearts. They knew that God
had warned four times that there would be a curse on anyone who added,
subtracted or altered in any way the Word of God (Deu.4:2; Prov.30:5–6;
Psa.12:6–7; Rev.22:18–19).
As believers, they would never deliberately alter the Holy Scriptures forthey would have believed in the curse that these verses proclaimed. The
only persons who would deliberately change the true text would be
blasphemers who did not believe the warnings. In context, these verses
forewarn not so much of accidental miscopying but of willful alterations.
Although the New Testament scribes may have left out a "thee" or an"and" as they copied, they copied as carefully and meticulously as possible
for they believed with all their hearts and souls that these were God
breathed words. They had made a commitment to follow the Lord Jesus
under great persecution from the emperors. Many of the scribes gave up
their very lives as well as the lives of their whole families, keeping thatcommitment while being crucified, fed to the lions, etc. For modern
scholars who sit comfortably in air conditioned surroundings to accuse
these dedicated souls of deliberately altering the Scriptures is almost
unforgivable. Poor writers, some may have been, but the high degree of
1

Floyd Nolen Jones, The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis, 6th ed., rev. & enl., (The
Woodlands, TX: KingsWord Press, 2000). Designated LXX after the 70 translators
reputed to have produced the translation, it is a spurious Greek Old Testament
supposedly written for the library of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 285–246 B.C. The story of
its origin abounds in legend.

12

Preservation or Restoration

chapter 1

accuracy found in their work is not present in those writings which arebeing put off on the church today as being the "oldest and most reliable"
manuscripts.

WOLVES PARADING AS SHEEPIn Acts 20, Paul warned that wolves would come in amongst us and notspare the flock; that from among our own selves men would arise withperverse things to say drawing away disciples unto themselves. Withtears in his eyes, Paul cautioned us to beware, and he did not cease
issuing this warning day and night. Indeed, Jesus taught that there
would be wolves coming into the flock of God in sheep's clothing (Mat.7).
Such a wolf cannot be recognized easily. It looks like a sheep. Revelation
l3 speaks of a false prophet with horns of a lamb but when he opens hismouth, he speaks with the voice of the dragon. So these wolves appear as
sheep in order to deceive and to devour.
The church at large is inattentive and dulled to these warnings. We tend
to think because someone has been to the seminary, has on a white collar
with robe, holds his hands in a pious manner with a devout look upon his
face, says he is a minister, perhaps speaks in tongues, and says nicethings about Jesus, that he is a man of God.
But even demons say nice things about Jesus. The first demonic person
encountered by Jesus in the Book of Mark was at the synagogue (church).
The demon possessed person said, "I know who you are. You are the Holy
One of God". He spoke well of Jesus but did not speak the whole truth.
Jesus is Jehovah God – the Creator – come in the flesh! (Isa.9:6) The
demon did not give forth the full import as to Jesus' personage, but he didsay something nice about Him. Today we often get lulled to sleep bypeople who say some nice things about Jesus. But both Jesus and Paulsaid to beware for there are wolves in sheep's clothing. Today thesewolves are in the flock as preachers, scholars, seminary professors,
teachers etc., and they are attacking the Word of God while theunsuspecting sheep graze on unaware.

WHEN DID THE WOLVES BEGIN TO DEVOUR THE
WORD?
Corruption of the New Testament text had begun by the time of Paul.
The following was preserved for us by the Holy Spirit through Paul in

13

Preservation or Restoration

chapter 1

II Corinthians 2:17: "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of
God...". Bible corruption, beginning in the Garden of Eden, was out ofcontrol as early as the time of Paul. In other words, when the original
apostles were here, they had trouble over the purity of the Bible text.
This is confirmed and enlarged upon in II Corinthians 4:2:
"But we (implied, vs 1) have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty,
not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully..."Thus even in Paul's day, when it was still possible to appeal to the New
Testament "autographs", there were those who were handling the Wordof God deceitfully and many were corrupting it. Peter adds that all ofPaul's writings were Scripture and that men were wrestling against themat the cost of the destruction of their own souls (II Peter 3:16).
If many were corrupting the Word of God during the days of the Apostles,
it is possible that we could find a first century document which did notcontain the original reading. It could have been altered and thus becorrupt even though very old for Paul and Peter said many were
corrupting the Word of God in the first century A.D. (also see II Thes.2:2).
People today are reading from so many different translations that they
begin to believe that they can translate or interpret the Bible in any way
they desire. The King James Bible says that there is but "one"interpretation of Scripture (although there are many applications).
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any privateinterpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit(Second Peter 1:20, author's emphasis).

God says there is only one interpretation – and that is His. Man does
have a free will and he may chose to believe anything he wishes, but hewill answer and give an account to God for it.

BEWARE – "A LITTLE LEAVEN ..."In Matthew 16:6 and 12, Jesus said unto his disciples "... Take heed andbeware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees". The
Pharisees and Sadducees were very religious people yet enemies of God.
The disciples finally understood in verse 12 that Jesus was not speakingof the bread which the Pharisees and Sadducees had made. He waswarning of their doctrine – to beware of that which the religious leaders

14Preservation or Restoration

chapter 1

were teaching. Today, the warning is still valid. Religious, pious devout
men who attack the Scriptures are wolves (or have been deceived bywolves) in sheep's clothing; beware of their leaven for a little leaven
leavens the whole lump.
Mark 12:37 contains these words – "... And the common people heard him
gladly". Nothing has changed. This is still true. The common people stillhear Jesus and the Word of God gladly, but more and more in churches
and seminaries it is no longer believed that we have the Word of God. We
are being told in conservative seminaries and Bible colleges that we do
not have the infallible Word of God and that we have lost its text. Are weto believe that God has preserved the canon of the Bible but not thetext?
If you are born again of God by the blood of Jesus Christ, through simple
faith in Jesus Christ – believing in His virgin birth, His death to pay forour sin, and His resurrection which confirmed that He is God Almighty
come in the flesh – then it follows that you believe that God gave thecanon (the books which belong in the Bible). Are we now to believe that
He did not give or preserve for us the text – that is, what those God
chosen books actually said?

NOT AN "AD HOMINEM"
In order to fully expose the wickedness of these wolves within the flock ofGod, we shall have to review the story of the 1881 revision and contrast it
to that of the 1611 King James translation. It is quite a story and inorder to disclose it, we shall have to examine the lives and beliefs of someof the men involved. As a result, some might say that our thesis is an "adhominem" and therefore not valid, for it draws on emotions and feelings –that it is a personal attack upon the men involved. Such is not the case.
We have not erected any "straw men" to attack. Rather our account isthat of an exposé, an exposé which will reveal that the Church has, for
centuries, been intimidated into following the scholarship of brilliant –yet habitually unregenerate – men.
However, no unsaved person can teach us ANYTHING about the Bible
that we really need to know. They may be brilliant scholars of Greek
and/or Hebrew. They may be able to explain how to conjugate Greek andHebrew verbs, but they cannot explain or clarify Scriptural context
because they do not understand it. They may know all about Assyriology,
Egyptology, Astronomy, the History of Babylon, the archaeology of Israel,

15

Preservation or Restoration

chapter 1

etc., but such information is not really necessary to the understanding of
the Holy Writ. The Scripture is a fully self contained revelation.
Were other data necessary to its comprehension, God would haveincluded it in The Word.
With reference to these bold assessments, the Scripture proclaims thatthe natural (unregenerate) man cannot receive the things of God ... "norcan he know them" (I Cor.2:9–14). Ephesians 4:18 says that their"understanding has been darkened". Romans 1:28 teaches that they havereprobate and depraved minds. Matthew 13:14–15 says that they hearwith their ears, but they do not hear with their understanding and theirhearts. Despite their scholarship and their brilliance, they do not see andhear – they cannot perceive. However, by virtue of the new birth theChristian may have his perception opened by revelation from the Living
God.
This is thus not an ad hominem. We need to understand that the men
who have led us into today's position have been, for the most part, lostand godless (albeit "religious and devout") and that we are blindly
following their erroneous logic of textual criticism.

THE GREEK STRONGHOLD
For the past several decades most conservative fundamental Bible
colleges and seminaries have been perpetuating a significant weakeningof the faith of their students with regard to the inerrancy of the
Scriptures. The result is that today most Church pulpits are now filledby these students who have since become pastors. The scenario is similar
and familiar almost no matter where one goes.
As the young
impressionable man of God enrolls for study and preparation to become apastor, he is soon informed that the New Testament was written in
Greek. Consequently the student eventually finds himself enrolled in a
first year Greek course.
The moment the student enters the class, a peculiar phenomenon occurs.
Not yet knowing Greek, he immediately finds himself placed at a great
disadvantage. What is the effect upon him from the spiritual standpoint?
Very soon, the professor will subjugate the young man under his
authority – not merely as an older man or as a teacher, but with regard to
all spiritual matters by virtue of his knowledge of the Greek language.
The clear impression that is conveyed toward the student is "You don't
have the Word of God. It is written in Greek. You just don't know the16

Preservation or Restoration

chapter 1'Holy' language. I do". So at the onset, the student is placed in submission under a teacher who may or may not love the Lord or believe in theverbal, plenary inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures.
Having been thus subjugated to a Greek scholar, further adverse
ramifications will follow shortly. The mind tends to accept as fact thatthe student never knows as much as his teachers. If he did, mostteachers would soon convince him to the contrary. We tend to elevateteachers to a high intellectual pedestal, and many teachers assist us in sodoing. In the mind of the learner, his Greek or Hebrew professor usuallyremains a spiritual authority, and the professor feels likewise.
Being thus subjugated to a Greek faculty, the young impressionable
student is unaware of what is transpiring. The final authority for his life
is no longer the Holy Scriptures which brought him to the Lord and set
his soul on fire. Final authority has become the Greek lexicons and his
Greek professor, the scholar, rather than the Word of God and the Holy
Spirit. This is accomplished by subtly convincing the inexperienced
student that he doesn't have the Word of God at his disposal. He soon
begins to wonder if it even exists.
The real issue here is that of authority. Authority is the controversy of
the universe. If the Bible is not really the infallible Word of God, thenwhat is final authority? Is it the Greek/Hebrew instructor? "MotherChurch"? The Pope? The head of one's denomination? One's local
preacher or Bible teacher? Thus someone has placed himself between thelaity and God by virtue of his knowledge of Greek. The church at large isbeing told: "You laymen simply do not know the language and therefore
cannot understand God or doctrine as do we who know Greek and/or
Hebrew".
This is the doctrine of the Nicolaitans (found in Revelation chapter 2), a
doctrine which Jesus Christ says He hates. The term "Nicolaitan" wasoriginally applied to a group of people who plagued the first century
church by its pretensions to having divine authority. Although somehave speculated that it could have referred to a group named after the
early deacon, Nicolas of Antioch (Acts 6:5), there exists no reliable recordof such a cult. The name itself comes from the Greek words "Nikao" ("toconquer" or "overcome") and "laos" ("people", especially in context here of
the laity, the laymen). Thus, we have a clergy priest class taking
authority over and dominating the people, the laymen.

17Preservation or Restoration

chapter 1

The Roman Catholic Church in particular has exercised such a practicefor years. One of the means by which Rome has accomplished thisunbiblical dominion has been that of continuing to use the Latin
language – a language which laymen no longer understand – during the
conducting of the various ceremonies, especially mass.
Today most Protestant Churches and their seminaries are guilty of thesame sin and, again, the means is that of language. When the laity
attend church and/or Bible studies, they hear preachers and teachers say"The ORIGINAL Greek says" or "Your Bible may say thus and so, but the
ORIGINAL Greek says something different". As mentioned previously,
this is occurring at the seminary where the professor affirms "You just
don't know the language".
Gradually something happens in the heart and mind of the student. He
wonders "how do I know that I am reading that which the LORD actuallyinspired and gave through the prophets, apostles and other men of God?
After all, most of the preachers, teachers and the commentaries aresaying 'but the original Greek says'".
Some seeking to circumvent the problem may reply – "Well, the final
authority is Jesus, only Jesus". The problem with such a statement isthat Jesus has not physically shown up at anyone's home for nearly two
thousand years and audibly said what He meant (Mat.24:23–27). It
sounds very spiritual to say that Jesus is the final authority. After all,
He is – and thus the statement is "true truth". But what many people
mean by such an affirmation is that since no one alive today has spoken
to the Lord Jesus physically and heard Him reply audibly, if the Bible is
not the Word of God – then there is no final authority on the earth.
Again, the real issue at stake is that of final authority.
And so, again, we say, would God inspire a text and then allow it tobecome lost? Would He not preserve it as He promised so many times?
And if He preserved it would He not keep it in the hands of His followers
for their use and instruction? Would He only preserve it within jars incaves and the like or in the obscure inner recesses of the vast library of a
harlot church, having been lost there for centuries? Are we to understandHis promises to preserve the Word as being fulfilled in such a context –really?
Today most seminary instructors ridicule or play down the King Jamestranslation to the student at the onset by statements such as "The18

Preservation or Restoration

chapter 1

original Greek says this or that. The King James is really not so bad butof course we have learned a lot since it was written", etc. Amazingly, we
have been blinded in believing that we know more about Greek today
than people did four hundred years ago. But is that a reasonable
position? Does not all logic, common sense and experience tell us thefarther one goes from the original source, that less will be certain?
So after the student's confidence in the King James Bible has been totallydiminished, he is informed that the original Bible was given in Hebrew
and Greek and that the original was inspired. The learner is thenreminded that all he has is a translation and as such, it is not inspired.
After a little more time in the class during which the teacher continues
harping on the originals, suddenly the student is informed "There are no
originals! We don't have an original. We don't have a single first century
document of the Bible" (but see the new findings, p. 207 ff.). This isdevastating to the faith of the young inexperienced would-be man of God.
He has been told that the King James isn't the faithful Word of God; thatthe originals were the only true, accurate, authentic Word; and then he isinformed that there are no original manuscripts of either the Old or the
New Testament.
This is soon accentuated by introducing the student to the "variant
readings" between the existing Greek MSS (we shall discuss this subject
later). How can the young pastor now face his congregation and say,"Almighty God says", or "thus saith the Lord". His faith in God's Word
has been emasculated by such wicked faculties. The man of God who
cannot quote Scripture with an assured "thus saith the Lord" is but ashorn Samson, not yet aware that the Philistines have already had their
way with him. Young men with hearts on fire for God walk into theclassroom and a Greek scholar belittles the Word of God and destroys
their faith in the Bible. These same professors then incredulously tell us"Despite all the changes we have made in translation recently, not one
single basic doctrine has been altered in any way".
But they have! By their tactics, they have altered two of the mostimportant doctrines of all. They have altered the crucial doctrine of"preservation" to that of "restoration" – and most text critics do notbelieve that such restoration is even any longer possible. Moreover thefall out from this places another of the most basic doctrines under attack,the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the text. Consequently, in sodoing, they have destroyed the faith of many such that they no longer arecertain that they have God's Word in their hands. The teacher has

19Preservation or Restoration

chapter 1

perpetuated that which happened to him years before when he was thestudent. The evil cycle is now complete. We have turned full circle to adifferent pope.
Again, we are being asked to believe in the inspiration of Scripture
without believing in the preservation of the sacred Writ. We are beingtaught at nearly all the conservative fundamental seminaries that God
gave an inspired text but could not (or did not) quite protect or preserve
it. As a result, part was lost or corrupted somewhere along the way, andtext critics are supposedly engaged in the arduous process of restoring to
the world the original readings. Thus, critical text theory rejects"preservation" and begins with the assumption that the text of the New
Testament has been lost.
Whereas that which follows may at times seem somewhat complicated,the only question the inquiring reader need ask himself is: "Is it
reasonable that God gave man His pure infallible Word and then allowed
it to become so corrupted over time that He (we) was left to call and rely
upon unregenerate men to restore it?" One can but wonder how abelieving Christian scholar, pastor, or layman could allow himself tobecome so deceived as to fall into the snare of considering only the"originals" to be trustworthy. Most assuredly, their faith did not begin
there. God "lost" portions of His Word? Was not that rather awkward ofHim?

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth:but the word of our God
shall stand for everIsaiah 40:8

20

II. BIBLICAL COMPARISONS DEPICTING THE
MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM
But enough talk – how serious can the problem be? After all, the Church
is constantly being reassured from all quarters that regardless of whichtranslation we use, no doctrines are at stake; hence, it does not matter
which version one uses. Let the reader examine the following examples
for himself peradventure God will grant him grace and insight to perceive
the magnitude of the deception. Bear with us gentle inquirer, for weshall be bold as a lion. Remember, that what lies before you represents
some of the most significant discrepancies and alterations, but there aremany, many more. These few have been selected that the student may
ascertain quickly and with certainty the nature and proportion of thatwhich has been done. Most of the comparisons will be between the KingJames and the NAS and/or the NIV because these two are being touted as
the best versions available in most circles today. Forewarned isforearmed.

Colossians 1:14
Regarding the son, Jesus, from verse 13, we read:
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of
sins: (KJ)
In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (NAS,NIV,RSV)

Comment: "Through his blood" is deleted – a major difference! Beloved,
if your "Bible" does not contain these three words, someone has tamperedwith it such that it is no longer the Word of God. If it is wrong here how
can you be certain that many other such omissions do not exist?

First Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was
manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto
the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (KJ)

This verse, as recorded in the King James, clearly teaches that Jesus is
God!

21

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

And by common confession great is the mystery of godliness: He who wasrevealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Beheld by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up inglory. (NAS,NIV,RSV,NEB)

Comment: There is a great difference between someone named "he"being manifest in the flesh and "God". By changing "God" to "He who",
the fact that Jesus is God is removed. This is one of the most powerfuland clear verses in all of Scripture concerning the deity of Christ Jesus –the alteration therefore is seen as a direct attack upon His deity.
Over 300 mss read "God was manifest", only 8 mss say something else; ofthose 8, five say "who" instead of "God" and three have privateinterpretations. This means that of the extant Greek manuscripts of the
New Testament that bear witness to the true reading of this verse, 97%
agree with the King James as opposed to 2% that read "who".
The verse should read as the 1611 KJB has rendered it, but the questionthat should be burning in the mind of the reader is "why did the othertranslations chose the minority text"? The reason will be forthcoming inlater chapters – but for now, let us continue with the exposé.

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shallconceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (KJ)"A young woman is going to have a baby". (Jerusalem Version)"A young woman who is pregnant will have a son". (Good News)"Behold a young woman shall conceive ..." (RSV)Comment: There is nothing new about a young woman's having a baby,
yet this is supposed to be a sign whereby God is promising deliverance inan almost impossible situation!
The Hebrew word "almah" (hmlu) occurs only seven times in the O.T. It
should be rendered "virgin" here for although "almah" could mean "young
woman", every time it is used in the Old Testament the context demands
that it means "virgin". The other six times it is translated "virgin" inmost of the various versions. One wonders why the sudden departure in
the verse before us. The miracle was going to be that a virgin was going
to conceive!
22

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

Furthermore, the New Testament confirms the fact in Mat.1:23 that
Mary was a virgin: "Behold, a virgin (Greek = "parthenos" = παρθενος)
shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his
name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us".
All languages contain both "weak" and "strong" words. By "weak" ismeant a word that has many shades of meaning or even widely different
meanings, i.e., the word "cool" in today's English. Such words can defy
etymological studies. "Strong" words, on the other hand, are words whichhave a very limited narrow meaning – often only one possible sense. We
begin to see the manifold wisdom of God in choosing to reveal His Word
to man in two tongues. Weak words in one which could lead to confusion
could be covered by strong words in the other by cross references andquotations. Such is the case before us. The "weak" Hebrew word "almah"(though we have already shown that by its Biblical usage it is not soweak) is covered in the N.T. by the "strong" Greek word "parthenos"
which can only be translated one way – "virgin".
Moreover, context is the decisive factor for determining the final
connotation of any word or phrase, not the dictionary definition or
etymology. Etymology, though often helpful, is not an exact science. It
should be used for confirmation, not as the deciding factor.
The translators of the modern versions are well aware of theincontrovertible decisive nature of "parthenos" hence the translation of
Isaiah 7:14 into any other word represents deliberate willful alteration of
the Word of God. In denying the virgin birth of Christ, they are saying:(a) Jesus was a bastard as Mary was unmarried when she conceived;(b) Mary was a fornicator;(c) God has lied to us in Mat. 1:22–23;(d) Christ was not God, not deity (having a physical father, He wasonly human); and(e) Christ was a sinner as he would then be a descendant of Adamand inherit Adam's nature as in Rom. 5:12.
The three verses placed before us thus far should serve as an excellent
barometer for the reader to use in determining whether a given version istrustworthy or not.

23

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

Zechariah 9:9
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem:
behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation;
lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. (KJ)
"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout aloud O daughter ofJerusalem; behold, your King comes unto you; triumph and victorious is
He; humble and riding on an ass, on a colt the foal of an ass. (RSV)Comment: "And having salvation" is left out. This verse clearly declares
the purpose for the Messiah's coming. The Bible believer must not allow
himself to be lulled into complacency. If he concedes these changes,
eventually he will have little left!
This will not be the only
editorialization to be put upon us! Given time, other words will beeliminated.
The law of God is perfect. It is so perfect that if a nation, a people or anindividual takes just one away or adds one to it, given enough time,
anarchy will ensue. The place to stop and stand fast is to give not one
word away!

Matthew 1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and hecalled his name JESUS. (KJ)
But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave
him the name Jesus. (NIV, NAS)

Comment: "A" son and her "firstborn" do not necessarily mean the same.
Furthermore, "firstborn" reveals that Mary had other children, correcting
the Roman error that Mary was a perpetual virgin. (which demands that
Joseph be a perpetual virgin also, unless he was an adulterer!? – cp.
Mk.6:2–4; Joh.7:2–6, cp. 2:12; Psa.69:8; Luk.21:16)

Matthew 4:10 (9:18; 20:20; Mk.5:6; Lk.24:52)
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thoushalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. (KJ)

Comment: In the above verse, Jesus clearly endorsed Deuteronomy 6:13
and 10:20, declaring that all worship and service should be directed
toward God and Him alone – yet Jesus Himself received and accepted24Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

worship on many occasions. In marked contrast, Peter (Acts 10:25, 26)
and an angel (Rev.22:8) refused to accept worship, insisting that only God
should be worshipped.
Thus by Jesus' act of accepting worship, He was proclaiming that He wasand is God! Moreover, that He was indeed Jehovah come in the flesh.
Yet many of the newer versions render the Greek verb "proskuneo"(προσκυνεω) as "bowed down", "paid homage", "knelt", "made obeisance"
etc. (See below.)
MAT 9:18 (KJ) While he spake these things unto them, behold, there
came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is evennow dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
MAT 9:18 (NAS) While he was saying these things to them, behold, there
came a synagogue official, and bowed down before him saying, "Mydaughter has just died; but come and lay Your hand on her, and she willlive". (knelt, NIV)
MAT 20:20 (KJ) Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children withher sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
MAT 20:20 (NAS) "Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Him
with her sons, bowing down, and making a request of Him". (kneeling
down, NIV)MAR 5:6 (KJ) But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped
him, ...
MAR 5:6 (NAS) And seeing Jesus from a distance, he ran up and bowed
down before Him. (fell on his knees, NIV)LUK 24:52 (KJ) And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem
with great joy:
LUK 24:52 (NAS) "And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy".
(worship omitted)

The preceding changes should alarm the Bible believer who is constantly
being told that the NAS and the NIV are the best translations available,
often by well meaning conservative men of God. Yet in these verses, theNAS and NIV read almost exactly as the New World Translation
published by the Jehovah's Witness cult (Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society).

25

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

Again, this represents a direct attack on the deity of Christ Jesus, and it
is not warranted in the Greek language. "Proskuneo" (προσκυνεο)appears 59 times in the N.T. In all of the other places, it has historically
been rendered as "worship", "worshipped", or "worshipping" without
challenge. It is by far the most prominent Greek word for worship in the
Scriptures (the second largest occurring only 3 times). It is used todescribe that which the people offer to: Satan (Rev.13:4), the Beast(Rev.13:15; 14:11; 16:2), demons (Rev.9:20), idols (Act.7:43), and God
throughout the N.T. In these verses, the translators of the NAS, NIV
etc., had no difficulty in translating "proskuneo" as "worship". Why dothey suddenly find themselves compelled to offer a different wording
when the same word is used in reference to the Lord Jesus Christ?
Moreover, the Hebrew equivalent of "proskuneo" is "shachah" (Hebrew =Shiyn-Cheyth-He = hjv).
Shachah occurs 174 times in the Old
Testament, and it too is normally translated by some form of the word
"worship" – being so rendered 99 times. Furthermore, shachah is thesame word that is used with reference to the worship of God, idols,
images, demons, etc. throughout the entire Old Testament.
Oh reader, can you not see the danger? Does not your heart already tell
you – does not the Holy Spirit bear witness to the true reading of theverses already cited? And yet there is much more.

Matthew 6:13b
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Comment: This is the end of the "model" prayer given by our Lord.
Nearly all modern translations omit or footnote1 the above. The Roman
church as well as post-millennialist want this ending deleted because
they teach that there will not be a 1,000-year kingdom with Jesus
enthroned on the earth. The church, according to the post-millennial
precepts, will evangelize the world and thus it will bring in the kingdom.
The Roman position is that as the Pope is ruling on the throne in the
Vatican State in Christ's stead, this is the Kingdom here and now. Rometeaches that through the Church's efforts all will be converted, that Satanwas bound when Jesus rose from the dead and all Scripture that clearly1"This doxology does not appear in the oldest and best Greek mss …Eminent textual
authorities believe that it was added ..". (New Scofield KJ footnote)26Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

teaches otherwise is spiritualized away by labeling it as allegory. It also
maintains that the Church has replaced Israel in all the prophetic verses– that God has forever abandoned the nation Israel, never to use it again.
Of course, Romans 9–11 and a multitude of other Scripture proclaim that
God will again use national Israel to His Glory. Moreover, the Scripture
declares that King Jesus is going to physically (Rev.19) return, bring in
the kingdom and give it to the saints (Luk.12:32)! God's ultimate planis that all saved Jews and Gentiles for all time will be together as one
flock, having one Shepherd, and in one fold (Jn.10:16).
This conclusion of the Lord's or "model" Prayer is found in 99% of the
Greek New Testament manuscripts yet it is universally rejected bymodern critics. Perhaps it is time the Church rejected the modern critics.

Matthew 19:17
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but
one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep thecommandments. (KJ)
"Jesus said unto him, Why are you asking me about what is good? Thereis only one who is good but if you wish to enter into life, keep thecommandments". (NAS; NIV is similar)

Comment: The rich young ruler had asked our Lord what good thingmight he do to have eternal life. Jesus' reply was one of the greatest
statements in the New Testament on the depravity of man and the deityof Christ. The question was about eternal life! The issue was Jesus! The
young man did not ask "what is good", but "what good thing shall I do?"Jesus' answer paraphrased would be "Young man, you just called me
good! Do you realize what you are saying, for the Scripture teaches that
there is only one good and that is God. Now do you still want to call me
good?" If he now acknowledges that Jesus is "good" it would betantamount to a confession that Jesus was God come in the flesh. Jesus
was confronting the rich young ruler concerning His person. In so saying,Jesus is making a positive claim to Deity!
Jesus' answer must have deeply stung the pride of Origen (A.D. 185–254:
See Ch. V, p. 92) who is the source of this adulteration in the Holy Writ.
As a Gnostic Alexandrian Greek scholar and philosopher who had alreadycastrated himself and gone around barefoot for years in order to earn27

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2"heavenly merits", Origen could not accept such as an authentic reading.
He changed it to appear that the rich young ruler had asked Jesus toanswer the great question of Greek philosophy – what is the "Summum
Bonum" (highest good)? The reading as it appears in the NAS, NIV etc. isthus exposed as a Gnostic depravity!

Mark 1:2–3
As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy
face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in
the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
(KJ)
As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger
before your face, who will prepare your way; The voice of one crying in
the wilderness, make ready the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
(NAS; NIV is similar.)Comment: Verse 3 is from Isaiah 40:3, but Verse 2 is not found in theBook of Isaiah. It is from Mal.3:1 – "Behold, I will send my messenger,
and he shall prepare the way before me ...". Thus the King James iscorrect in saying "prophets". Why is this distinction so important?
Because Malachi gives the Hebrew precise original quote. If we know tolook for the Mark text in more than one O.T. prophet, the reader may
learn the great truth that lies couched in these verses.
When we read the last part of Malachi 3:1 and compare this to verse 6,
we find that the "my" and "me" of verse one is Jehovah (LORD in allcaps). When the New Testament quotes the Old, the word for Jehovah is
not in all capital letters but in the Old Testament the word "LORD" is the
English rendering of the Hebrew YHWH (Yod-He-Vav-He, hwhy) which wecall "Jehovah".
Jehovah is speaking, hence Malachi is saying that the God of the Old
Testament, Jehovah Himself, is coming – in the flesh! There is only one
God and His principal name is "Jehovah". He manifested Himself inthree persons, one in the flesh in order to die for man's sins. As Mark
1:1–3 applies to Jesus, we see that this becomes a declaration as to theperson of Jesus – that He is Jehovah come to earth. This identification
cannot be pieced together from Isaiah alone. Origen did not believe that
Jesus was Jehovah come in the flesh so he altered the verse to fit his
Gnostic beliefs, obliterating the connection to Malachi.
Moderntranslators are using Origen's private interpretation from which totranslate.

28Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

The King James makes it clear that Jehovah was coming in the flesh
whereas the NAS and NIV do not. This is a major doctrinal point for the
person and deity of Christ Jesus are at issue.

Mark 9:43–44
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter intolife maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire thatnever shall be quenched: 44: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is
not quenched. (KJ)
RSV and NIV both omit verse 44. By so doing, man is not warned; hedoes not have to be concerned about eternal fire.

Comment: To learn what Jesus says about hell, read Chapter 9
beginning with verse 42. Jesus taught more about hell and its realities in
the Gospels than is found in the rest of the Bible put together. Jesus
repeats verse 44 again in verse 46. A church or person not believing inhell fire prefers the deletion of verse 44, but the original perverter of theMark Scripture overlooked that it was a quote from Isaiah 66:24 andomitted to alter the teaching there. Man may try to eliminate hell in the
New Testament, but the truth of the terrible consequence of man's sin if
left un-atoned by not receiving Jesus as one's personal Savior ispreserved for us in the Old Testament.
It does not alter the truth or fact of hell if one says he does not believe inhell. One may declare that he does not believe in gravity, but if he walks
off a twenty story building he will find that mind over matter does notwork. Cults teach "mind over matter", as do some Christian circles
regarding the subject of faith, but it is not a Scriptural concept – notwhen context is considered. The fact of hell as a literal place is Scriptural(Luk.16:19–31 etc.).

Mark 10:21
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thoulackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, andthou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, andfollow me. (KJ)
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "one thing you lack", he said. "Go,sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure
in heaven. Then come, follow me". (NIV; NAS is similar.)

29

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

Comment: The words "take up the cross" have been left out. That
doctrine admittedly makes Christianity sound more appealing, but Jesus
says there is a cross that comes with the new birth. The cross is a placeof death. It is where man's will "crosses" God's will in opposition, rather
than agreeing and lining up with the will of the Lord. It is the place
where "self" dies to its own will, desires, goals, ambitions etc., and bows
its head in humble submission to its Lord and says "not my will Lord but
thine".

Mark 16:9–20
9Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared

first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. 10And
she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned andwept. 11And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been
seen of her, believed not. 12After that he appeared in another form unto
two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13And they wentand told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. 14Afterward heappeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with
their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not themwhich had seen him after he was risen. 15And he said unto them, Go ye
into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shallbe damned. 17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my nameshall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They
shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not
hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19So
then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into
heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20And they went forth, andpreached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming theword with signs following. Amen. (KJ)

Comment: Most versions have a footnote to the effect that "these verses
are not in the oldest, best, most reliable Greek manuscripts". In laymen's
terms this means that Mark 16:9–20 are not in the two 4th century Greek
manuscripts, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph which were derived from
Origen's (AD 185–254) edited New Testament (a 12th century minusculealso omits the verses). Satan has always wanted to strip the church of its
power, authority, and commission.
These verses are the Great
Commission spoken by Jesus as recorded by Mark. It is an apostolic
commission delegating great power to the body of Christ that it may
continue the ministry of the Lord Jesus.

30

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

Of the approximately 3,119 Greek manuscripts of the N.T. extant today,none is complete. The segment of text bearing Mark 16 has been lostfrom many, but over 1,800 contain the section and verses 9–20 are
present in all but the 3 cited above.1 The footnote is thus unveiled andlaid bare as dishonest and deliberately misleading in intimating thatthese verses are not the Word of God.
The external evidence is massive. Not only is the Greek manuscript
attestation ratio over 600 to 1 in support of the verses (99.99%) – around
8,000 Latin mss, about 1,000 Syriac versions as well as all of the over
2,000 known Greek Lectionaries contain the verses.2 They were cited by
Church "Fathers" who lived 150 years or more before B or Aleph were
written i.e.: Papias (c.100), Justin Martyr (c.150), Irenaeus (c.180),
Tertullian (c.195), and Hippolytus (c.200).3
Further, the Vatican MSS has a blank space exactly the size required toinclude the 12 verses at the end of the 16th chapter. The scribe who
prepared B obviously knew of the existence of the verses and their precise
content. Indeed, as Tischendorf observed, Sinaiticus exhibits a different
handwriting and ink on this page, and there is a change in spacing andsize of the individual letters in an attempt to fill up the void left by theremoval of the verses. These circumstances testify that the sheet is aforgery.
Do we really believe that God would have the greatest story ever told end
at verse 8: "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulcher; forthey trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man;for they were afraid". Would God allow the good news of the Gospel toend with his disciples cringing in fear? Would Mark conclude his Gospel
without any reference to the appearance of the risen Christ to His
disciples? I think not! The reader should feel a deep sense of righteous
indignation upon learning of the unscrupulous manner in which these
verses have been presented by nearly all Bible publishers.
1

Even in 1871 A.D., 620 of the then extant mss were known to contain Mark 16; only
Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph did not have verses 9–20; John W. Burgon, The Last
Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark, (Oxford and London: James Parker &Co., 1871), p. 71. Since 1871, hundreds more of the 3,119 mss have been discovered.

2

Only one Latin mss, one Syriac and one Coptic version omit Mark 9–20. Much of thematerial in this paragraph has been gleaned from Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering's taped
interview before the Majority Text Society in Dallas, Texas (Summer of 1995).

3

John Burgon, The Revision Revised, (London: John Murray, 1883), pp. 422–423.

31

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

Luke 1:34
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not aman? (KJ)
Then Mary said to the angel, How shall this be since I have no husband?
(RSV)

Comment: These verses are not declaring the same thing. Do not women
have children without having husbands? God was declaring that Mary
was a virgin. This verse also corroborates that Isaiah 7:14 should read"virgin". Again, Jesus did not inherit Adam's sin nature – He (withregard to His humanity, not His eternal deity) inherited the sinlessnature of His Father God as a result of the miraculous conception of
Mary! The Scriptures teach that one receives his "nature" (we are notreferring to character traits) from one's father, not the mother.

Luke 2:14
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
(KJ)
Glory to God in the highest (heaven), and on earth peace among men
with whom he is well pleased. (AMP; NAS & NIV read similarly except
say "peace among men of good will".

Comment: The Scriptures teach that there are no men of good will, thatthe heart is desperately wicked and that none are righteous – no, not one– that all are sinners. The humanist trite offered as Scripture in theNAS, NIV, and AMP above is not the message which God brought thenight the Messiah was born. The message delivered by the angels to theshepherds near Bethlehem was that God was presenting a gift of His
good will toward all men, not merely to men of good will.
The reading contained in the newer translations reflects the view of theancient Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. To them, a"good will" was the major factor in approaching life; some even considered
it to be the "summum bonum" (supreme good). This "stale crumb" ofGreek Philosophy1 was introduced into the N.T. when Origen altered"eudokia" ("good will" – nominative case) to "eudokias" ("of good will" –genitive case) thus producing the result he desired (though he admitted
in his critical apparatus that he was not certain of the correct reading).
1

Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 4th ed., (Des Moines, IA: Christian
Research Press, 1984), p. 144.

32

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

The truth of the matter is assured by the context (context often ignored or
missed by many so-called Greek and Hebrew scholars in their determined
penchant for altering the King James and its Greek foundation – theTextus Receptus), for verse 10 precedes with "and the angel said unto
them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, whichshall be to all people". The angels were bringing the good news to all
people, not just to men of good will – for as there are no such creatures,such would not be "good tidings". Moreover, the "new" reading spoils thethree-fold meter of the verse by doing away with the last of the threesubjects (glory, peace, good will), and "men of good will" is grammaticallyleft without any qualifying genitive.1

Luke 2:33
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spokenof him. (KJ)And His father and His mother were amazed at things which were being
said about Him. (NAS; NIV)

Comment: God is meticulously affirming that Joseph was not the fatherof Jesus by the King James wording "Joseph and Jesus' mother". The
NAS and NIV reduce Jesus to a mere human, born with a sin nature
inherited from Adam. The alteration is another assault upon Jesus'
deity.

Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not liveby bread alone, but by every word of God. (KJ)
Jesus answered and said, Man shall not live by bread alone. (NAS)

Comment: Omitting "but by every word of God" is a major doctrinal pointof contention. The King James reading protects the believer from overdispensationalism which tends to negate the importance of the Old
1

Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 1st ed., (Des Moines, IA: Christian
Research Press, 1956), p. 73. The page of this reference has changed in Dr. Hills' later
editions and to date I have not been able to locate it in his 1984 publication. All otherreferences to this work of Hills (except that on page 141) is to his 1984 4th edition.
A distinguished Latin major and Phi Beta Kappa graduate from Yale, Dr. Hills,
completed his Th.D program in New Testament text criticism at Harvard. A conservative
Presbyterian Christian scholar, he was called home by the Lord in 1981.

33

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

Testament. Jesus corrects that error as the O.T. was also given by the
Word of God. The whole point of the verse has been left out! Yet the
Church is constantly being taught and persuaded that the NAS and NIV
are the best translations available.

Luke 9:54–56
The setting of the story here is that Jesus and his disciples are en routeto Jerusalem through Samaria and the Samaritans will not welcome
them to their cities.
54And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt

thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consumethem, even as Elias did? 55But he turned, and rebuked them, and said,
Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. 56For the Son of man is notcome to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to anothervillage. (KJ)
54And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, Do

you want us to command fire to come down from heaven, and consume
them? 55But He turned and rebuked them. 56And they went to anothervillage. (NAS; NIV is similar)

Comment: None of the underlined KJ verses appears in the NAS or the
NIV. Some of the other versions relegate them to a footnote. Had the
Roman Catholic Church read and believed verse 56 there would never
have been the inquisition where between 50 to 60 million people weremurdered! By omitting these portions of Scripture, one could justify
killing those disagreeing with his doctrine!

Luke 22:64
And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, andasked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? (KJ)
They blindfolded him and demanded, Prophesy! Who hit you? (NIV,NAS)

Comment: "They struck Him on the face" was omitted. Not only is it
important to know the fact that the Lord Jesus suffered such indignity
and cruelty, this is prophecy being fulfilled which points to the fact that
Jesus is the Messiah. Micah 5:1 records: "... they shall smite the judge of
Israel with a rod upon the cheek".

34

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

Luke 23:38
And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, andLatin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. (KJ)
There was a written notice above him, which read: this is the king of theJews. (NIV; NAS is similar)

Comment: The words "of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew" were omitted!

Luke 23:42
And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy
kingdom. (KJ)
The word "Lord" is omitted. (NIV, NAS)

Comment: Not one Greek manuscript omits this word! Calling Jesus"Lord" indicates that the thief was converted before his death which
establishes several important points. First, that God will receive awicked man even at the last moments of his life; that it is never too late
to become reconciled to God while there is life. This serves to reveal thenature and heart of God – that it is toward man and that He desires thatnone should perish doomed.
Secondly, it demonstrates that God will receive a man apart from any
religious rituals such as water baptism or extreme unction. There isabsolutely no Greek authority for this omission; it is a privateinterpretation of those responsible for the newer Greek New Testaments
which alter the Greek text upon which the King James is based.

Luke 24:6
He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he
was yet in Galilee, (KJ)
Remember how He told you while He was still in Galilee. (RSV)Comment: The most important part of the verse (see the underlined
portion) – the entire resurrection – is omitted!

Luke 24:42
And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. (KJ)
They gave him a piece of broiled fish. (NIV, NAS)35

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

Comment: The words "and of an honeycomb" were omitted. The pointthat is being made is that when the reader uses the other versions, how is
he to know what has been edited or deleted – whether it be concerning amajor detail or not as in the above cited case? From now forward, thereader will always wonder, "has anything been omitted?"

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in
the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJ)
Nestle's Greek Text gives the following literal reading (NAS, AMP, NIV
are similar): God, no man has seen never – the only begotten God, theOne, being in the bosom of the Father, that One declared Him.

Comment: Instead of "only begotten Son" we find "only begotten god".
That means that Jesus is a created god – a lesser god – a god with a little"g" and thus not eternal. This Scripture is dealing with the dual natureof Jesus, the humanity of Jesus versus His deity. Some Scripture reveals
one and some the other. Not always realizing that He is l00% both, many
people become confused.
Sonship, when used in connection with Christ Jesus, always refers to His
humanity – never to deity. As a man, He was begotten, had a beginning –became a son (cp. Luk.1:35; Act.13:33; Psa.2:7; Heb.1:5–6; Mat.1:18–25
etc.), but as God the Creator – He had no beginning !
Micah 5:2, in speaking of the Messiah, declares "But thou, Bethlehem
Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out ofthee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose
goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting".
That Jesus is merely a created being, a lesser god, is the original Arian
heresy! Arius (died 336) was an early "Church Father" who put forth thisheresy. Emperor Constantine I and Eusebius promoted the teaching.
The Holy Scripture teaches that there is one God who has revealed
Himself in three different Persons – the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit. God, who is a spirit, became a Son for the purpose of dying toredeem fallen man. When this occurred, God also remained in heaven
becoming a Father as He had "begotten" (imparted life) a son.

36

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

The most important single issue regarding Jesus is – Who is He – notwhat He did! Even though what He accomplished in His finished work ofredeeming fallen man through His blood atonement for man's sin andsins was of major and majestic significance, it is secondary whencompared to His person. What we are saying is, that the Church has
proclaimed that men should give their hearts and lives to Christ – that
we should faithfully follow adore and worship Him – because He gave His
life for our sins. Wrong! We should do all of these – first and foremost
because of who He is, God Almighty – the Creator ! Because He is God
we should worship Him and Him only should we serve, not because He
did something for us. He is worthy of worship for Himself! For His own
personal worth He deserves man's total being and allegiance. Then,
secondarily, out of gratitude for His voluntarily humbling Himself intaking on the nature of flesh and for sacrificing Himself on our behalf –we should give Him all our loyalty, all our love and obedience.
Whenever the Scripture speaks of Jesus as the Son, it is always referringto the 33 years which He spent on the earth as a genuine human,although He never ceased being God. Thus God begat a Son ! In otherwords, before the incarnation, before the virgin Mary's egg was
supernaturally fertilized without intercourse (Luk.1:35) when He became"the Son of God", "the only begotten Son of the Father" – before all of thisand from eternity past – who was Jesus? He was God in His own right.
He was always God. "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with
God and the Word was God" (Joh 1:1).
God is a Spirit (Joh.4:24 KJ). The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit
are one and the same eternal Spirit from eternity past. Jesus, theMessiah, is thus the Creator of heaven and earth – the God of the Old
Testament whose principal name is Jehovah – come in the flesh.
ISA 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and thegovernment shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
Prince of Peace.

Christianity is monotheistic – we do not believe in three Gods. There is
one God (Isa.43:10–11; 44:6, 8b; 45:5, 21–22; Mk.12:29–33; Rom.3:30;
I Cor.8:6; Eph.4:5–6; I Tim.2:5; and Jas.2:19) who, for the sake ofredeeming fallen man (and that plan via foreknowledge was from before
the foundation of the world), has revealed Himself in three distinct
persons.

37

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

We do not argue or debate the above concerning the person of the Lord
Jesus Christ. We proclaim it – though much of Christendom be ignorantof these basic Bible tenets.
The Greek text that most of the Bible Colleges and Seminaries use today
which has replaced the Greek text underlying the King James translation
denies all of this by its reading – as does the NAS, NIV, AMP etc. which
follow it. This is of preeminent importance. This is not error or
mistranslation – it is heresy! It attacks the person of the Lord Jesus theChrist at the very foundation. O' Church, awake! The Philistines areupon us!

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth
not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (KJ)
Whosoever believes in the Son has eternal life; but who does not obey the
Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him. (NAS)

Comment: The verse has been changed from God's clear declaration that
eternal life is the result of faith in Jesus, of believing in Him – tosalvation is obtained by obedience. Obedience (other than that ofrepenting and receiving Jesus) is a "work of righteousness".
Being a child who pleases his father is desirable, but when a person is
first saved he does not have complete understanding. It is the work of
the Holy Spirit within him to bear witness as to right and wrong and it
usually takes time to discern His voice and leading. Titus 3:5 says "Notby works of righteousness which we have done, but according to hismercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of theHoly Ghost;". The NAS offers "another gospel" in the above verse.

John 6:35
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me
shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. (KJ)And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that comes to me
shall not hunger; and he who believes on me shall never thirst. (NAS)

Comment: Why was "never" changed to "not"? It alters the whole force ofJesus' words. Upon eating a large meal, one could say he was not hungry

38

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

but it would not mean that he would never be hungry again. He would
probably be hungry again within five hours. The doctrine of Jesus iscentered upon Himself – "He who comes to Me ...".

John 6:47
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting
life. (KJ)
Truly, truly, I say to you he who believes has eternal life. (NAS, NIV)

Comment: He who believes what? They leave out in whom to believe andtrust – upon whom to rely. Jesus said "He that believeth on ME ...". Is
not this a grave matter?

John 8:1–11
The story of the woman taken in adultery – see APPENDIX A, p. 219. As
the explanation is lengthy and technical, it has been placed so as not tocause the reader to lose sight of the issues.

Acts 8:36–37
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: andthe eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.
And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
(KJ)
RSV; New English Bible: Both omit all of verse 37 (underlined). Verse
37 is omitted and relegated to a footnote in the NIV and NAS.

Comment: What church or churches have always taught salvation bywater baptism? If verse 37 is part of the Word of God, it would establishthat baptizing a baby would not save him. Children are covered bycovenant until they are old enough to make a decision. Only Jesus cansave the soul – not water baptism. For those believing in infant baptism
for salvation, it would be necessary to remove verse 37. Galatians 3:26
declares: "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus".
Thus if you do not have faith in Christ Jesus you are not a child of God.
So it is pointless to baptize a baby who does not have faith in ChristJesus. This verse teaches that faith in Jesus' deity is a prerequisite towater baptism. It is cited by Irenaeus (c.180) and Cyprian (c.250) and isfound in the Old Latin and the Vulgate translations.

39

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which
the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God,
which he hath purchased with his own blood. (KJ)
Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has
made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained withthe blood of his own Son. (RSV 1971 NCC)

Comment: Perceive the difference! The King James declares that God's
church was purchased by God's blood – therefore Christ is God. It was
Jesus Christ whose blood was shed. The RSV separates Christ from God
when it changes "his own blood" to "the blood of his own Son".

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in ChristJesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (KJ)

Comment: All modern versions omit the underlined portion of the verse.
This is because they have as their foundation the Greek uncials Aleph
and Vaticanus (see p. 106) whereas the King James was based upon adifferent Greek text which reflects the reading of over 95% of all the
known Greek manuscripts (see p. 50). These two uncials are supported
by a few others (C,D,F & G) as well as a few cursives and versions.
However, the vast mass of Greek cursives testify to the inclusion of thesewords. Even the much vaunted uncial "A" (see p. 108) contains "whowalk not after the flesh".
The critics pretend that this portion was inserted from the end of verse 4
in the course of transcription and that this mis-copied mss had its novel
reading copied more than all the others. Strangely, such men claim forthemselves insight and wisdom far greater than the whole of England(see p. 66 ff.). Such critics tell us what God ought to say rather thanwhat God has said.
Most Calvinists favor its omission fearing the doctrinal implications
toward Arminianism if the portion is included. However such concern isof no force when one realizes that the ending is not a qualifying remark
but rather serves to define what is meant by being "in Christ Jesus".
Verses 8, 9, 13, 7:25 and 9:8 clearly define the terms "after the flesh" and"after the Spirit". Verse 4b is a refrain for emphasis. Scripture is rifewith similar redundancies for the same reason – accentuation ofimportant themes.

40Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

Romans 14:10b, 12... for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ ... So thenevery one of us shall give account of himself to God. (KJ)... for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God ... So then eachone of us shall give account of himself to God. (NAS)

Comment: The logic as preserved by the King James Bible is irrefutable!
When we stand before the judgment seat of Christ – we are giving
account to GOD. Therefore – Christ Jesus is God! Observe the subtle
difference in the NAS! Just one small word is changed, yet there is no
proof left that Jesus is God in these verses!

Second Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (KJ)
Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting
error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so thatthe man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good workof every kind. (NEB)
The NAS footnote reads: "or, every Scripture inspired by God is also
profitable ..."

Comment: These renderings imply that there are Scriptures not given byinspiration of God. There is a problem if some are whereas others arenot! A Pope or pastor would accordingly be necessary to determine whichverses were inspired (job security for the clergy)!

Hebrews 1:3
Who [God's son, cp. v.1–2] being the brightness of his [God's] glory, andthe express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of
his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the righthand of the Majesty on high: (KJ)... After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the righthand ... (NIV; NAS similar).

Comment: "By himself" has been removed. By removing these words,
perhaps Mary or some saint helped Jesus remove our sins! It is clear
from the KJ that no one helped Jesus redeem. He is God come in theflesh and does not need any help. This is a major doctrinal point!

41

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

Hebrews 2:11
For both he that sanctifieth and they who are Sanctified are all of one:for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, (KJ)
For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin.
That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren. (RSV)Comment: The RSV adds "origin". By saying that Christ had the same
origin as man, they are teaching that Christ is not God! Christ did nothave an origin, as the Scriptures clearly proclaim, i.e.:
PSA 90:2 ... even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. (KJ)MIC 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among thethousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is tobe ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, fromeverlasting. (KJ)

"All of one" is clearly defined in the context of the last part of the verse,
namely the context of "family" via the new birth. Hence "all of one
Father" is the sense of the matter, not "origin"!

Micah 5:2
But you, O Bethlehem Ephratah, who are little to be among the clans of
Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel,
whose origin is from of old, from ancient days (RSV; NIV similar).

Comment: They continue this blasphemy in demeaning the deity of
Christ whereas the King James honors it.

Hebrews 2:16
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him theseed of Abraham. (KJ)
For indeed He does not give aid to angels but He does give aid to the seedof Abraham. (NKJ; NAS, NIV, AMP & RSV similar)

Comment: First, we remind the reader that here both of the abovetranslations are being made from the exact Greek words as contained in
the Textus Receptus (the original Greek reading of the New Testament).
This is one of the many cases where the translation is facilitated by thecontext. The immediate context of verse 16 is unmistakably revealed in
the verse that follows:42Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

HEB 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made likeunto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest
in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of thepeople.

Although the Greek is admittedly difficult if verse 16 alone is considered,
the translators had their job clarified by the Holy Spirit. That which
follows in verse 17 has nothing to do whatever with "giving aid" to angels.
Furthermore, verse 14 both confirms and precedes the "problem" verse
with the correct context:
HEB 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh andblood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through deathhe might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Clearly the subject being presented is that of the human nature of the
Messiah, and as the letter is addressed to the "Hebrews" it is of special
relevance to those who proceeded from the loins of Abraham. Moreover,verse 16 amplifies verse 5:
HEB 2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world tocome, whereof we speak.

The writer of the Book of Hebrews is being led by the Holy Spirit todemonstrate, beginning with the "remote" context concerning familiar
Old Testament fundamentals, why the Messiah had to be a man andcould not be an angel.
The 1611 King James translators recognized the importance of bringing
this "remote context" (or distant context) to bear upon this verse, theliteral Greek itself being cryptic and obscure. As all linguists well know,some interpretation is necessary when engaged in translating from one
language to another, sentence structure, word order, etc. often being
different. The object is to be faithful to the original wording and meaningsuch as to do as little interpretation as possible.
Thus, guided by the Spirit of God, the King James translators correctly
rendered verse 16 with regard to the remote context as well as withregard to the immediate context of the verses surrounding it. Theysignified that they had done this by placing "him the nature of" and "him"in italics. This clearly distinguishes between the words of man and ofGod. All other translations contain similar word insertions (many morethan found in the KJ), but unlike the King James translation, they do not
let the reader know this by so indicating.

43

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

Moreover, the verse as rendered in the KJ shows Jesus as the true
fulfillment of mankind's only hope as revealed in the Old Testament
prophecies – that He is the promised "seed of the woman" (Gen.3:15).
This prophetic application of the verse is completely missed in the othertranslations.
Further, He is pictured by the KJ translators as especially being thefulfillment of the continuation of the Genesis 3:15 promise as given to
Abraham.
And in thy (Abraham) seed (singular! Greek = spermati {σπερματι},
LXX – cp. Gal. 3:16) shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; becausethou hast obeyed my voice. (Gen. 22:18, KJB)

But we are not left at the mercy of some mere man or modern Greek or
Hebrew authority to divulge that the word "seed" in the above verse is
not speaking of the Jewish nation but is in the singular and as such is a
unmistakable reference to Messiah. The Holy Spirit reveals this truth tohim in English elsewhere in Scripture.
Now to Abraham and his seed (σπερματι = spermati – singular in Greek)
were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds (σπερμασιν =spermasin – plural as does the root σπερμα, = sperma; see the LXX), as ofmany; but as of one, And to thy seed (σπερματι – singular), which is
Christ. (Galatians 3:16, KJB)

All of the rich setting and overview that has preceded is completely lost in
the modern reading of Hebrews 2:16.
Equally alarming, the reading as found in the NKJV et al. introduces aconspicuous error into the Word of God – namely, that God does notgive aid to angels.
This contradicts Daniel 10 wherein the prophet for whom the Book isnamed was told by an angel that he had been dispatched from the throneof Heaven to come to strengthen him. Nevertheless, the heavenly
messenger had been withstood for a period of 21 days by the demon
prince who oversaw the kingdom of Persia. It was not until God
dispatched the archangel Michael to come to the aid of the angelic
messenger that he was able to successfully battle through and reach
Daniel.
Thus, the internal evidence of other Scripture lays bare this inaccurate
rendering of the Word of God and shows all translations which so follow

44

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

as being erroneous and inferior. The Monarch of Books, the true English
rendering of the Holy Writ as preserved in the 1611 King James Bible, isthereby demonstrated to be conspicuously superior and preeminent.

First Peter 2:2
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may growthereby: (KJ)
Like newborn babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may
grow up to salvation. (RSV; NIV is similar)

Comment: This perversion teaches (1) that salvation occurs over a periodof time and (2) that it is by works. Salvation is a free gift and the Wordteaches that we neither "grow up" to it, "work for it", nor "obtain it
gradually". Deliverance from sin comes by faith in Christ Jesus, e.g.:
ACT 16:31 ... Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt
be saved ... (KJ)

(3) The phrase "of the word" has been omitted, leaving us to wonder what
"spiritual milk" is. The King James tells us the answer.

First Peter 4:1
Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm
yourselves likewise with the same mind ... (KJ)
Therefore since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also withthe same purpose (NAS; NIV is similar).

Comment: Why did Christ Jesus suffer? For us!
removal from the text. Is not this "doctrinal"?

Note its complete

First John 5:6–8
See APPENDIX B, p. 231. As the explanation is lengthy and technical, it
has been placed so as not to cause the reader to lose sight of the issues.

45

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

Acts 9:6
The following comparison is a clear capsule specimen depicting thecharacter and degree of the alterations that have been made upon the
Holy Scripture.
(speaking of the conversion of Saul [Paul] on the Damascus Road)"And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to
do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shallbe told thee what thou must do". (KJ)
"Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do".
(NIV; NAS etc., is similar)

Comment: Surely by now the reader has seen enough that any
elucidation on our part is superfluous.
We therefore with somereluctance mention that without the above underlined words, one cannot
be certain if Saul were converted.
If these words are allowed to stand as faithfully recorded in the KingJames Bible, Saul – fully aware of the identity of the person with whom
he is speaking – acknowledges Jesus as his Lord. That the verse likewiseteaches the fear of the risen glorified Christ, as well as His boundlessgrace, is also manifestly evident.

Psalms 8:4–5
Lastly, a dramatic example depicting the serious inconsistencies found in
the other translations may be seen in the following:
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, thatthou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels,and hast crowned him with glory and honour. (KJ)HEB 2:6–7
But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art
mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou madest
him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory andhonour ... (KJ)PSA 8:4–5
What is man, that Thou dost take thought of him? And the son of man,that Thou dost care for him? Yet Thou hast made him a little lower thanGod, And dost crown him with glory and majesty! (NAS, RV, et al.).

46

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

HEB 2:6–7
But one has testified somewhere, saying, "What is man, that thourememberest him? or the son of man that thou art concerned about him?
Thou hast made him for a little while lower than the angels; thou hastcrowned him with glory and honor ..." (NAS)

Comment: The highly touted NAS has rendered the Hebrew word
"Elohim" as "God" in the eighth Psalm, creating within itself aconspicuous contradiction in the Hebrews 2 quotation of that O.T.
passage. The "weak" Hebrew word (which can mean God, angels, judges,
magistrates etc.) is protected by the "strong" Greek word "aggelos" which
can only be translated "angels".1 The KJB is faithful to the LORD and to
its readers by correctly rendering both passages as "angels".
The NAS reading in the 8th Psalm is not merely wrong, it fails tocomprehend the immeasurable chasm existing between the Creator andthe creature. It is humanistic, insulting to GOD and as such represents a
blasphemous heretical translation having ignored God's New Testament
Greek shelter and defense mechanism.
*******
By now the perplexed inquirer must be wondering just how such radical
changes have come about in the text of the Holy Scriptures. We remind
him of the many times he surely has heard or read from various sources
words to the effect that "the oldest", "the best" or "the most reliable"
manuscripts read so and so – or "omit" or "add" to the verses he has read.
On and on the footnotes go in the various "Bibles" on the market today,
crushing the faith of layman and pastor alike.
But how can they read so dramatically different in the relatively few yet
numerically significant places that they diverge? After all, when thetranslators translate, it is understandable how one group may selectdifferent adjectives, conjunctions, synonyms etc., but our reader wonders– how can an entire word, indeed – a phrase, clause, sentence, verse andeven a prolonged series of verses, be missing from one version to another?
This is especially true when the King James (and all the many English
versions prior to the KJB) is compared to all the newer versions. What isthe basis for the many words which are present in the 1611 Authorized1

Two connecting g's in Greek are pronounced as "ng", i.e., "angelos".

47

Biblical Comparisonschapter 2

Version that are not to be found in these modern versions? Surely the1611 translators did not just make them up out of thin air.
The ordinary reader naturally assumes that the changes have resulted
from supposed advances made in the ongoing study of Greek which have
sharpened the reviser's skill in translating. However, the shocking
answer to these questions lies in the fact that there are two distinctly
radically different Greek texts upon which the New Testament in English(or any other language) is based. Moreover, the Church for centuries hashonored only one of these as the Holy Word of God. The other was
rejected by the early Church during the 3rd to 5th centuries as adepraved Gnostic alteration of the true text. The early Church's rejectionof this second text relegated it to an early grave. However, with theadvent of modern archaeology and the so-called "sciences" of higher andlower text criticism, it has arisen inexplicably from its sandy Egyptian
grave (Beware of returning to Egypt!). Thus that which was rejected as a
spurious text by the early Church and its successors down through thecenturies is today being accepted as genuine.
Strangely, in the past one hundred years, this "mummy" has been
resurrected and once again has been offered to the Church as authentic –only this time the sleeping Church has not seen the danger. Yea, mostare totally unaware that such an entity exists.
The following chapters will trace and explain the entire sorry state ofaffairs from its inception to the present. Brace yourselves, oh gentle
reader, for the Amalekites are not nipping at the rear of the column thisday – the danger is far worse (Exo.17:8–16; Deu.25:17–19). Today, thevalley is full of Midianites – the Assyrians have enclosed the people of the
Living God within the wall of Jerusalem (Jud.6:33, 7:12; and II
Ki.18:17ff). The siege mounds have been raised against us on all sides.
Perhaps it is too late for a Gideon, Isaiah, Hezekiah, or a mere shepherd
watchman.
Oh that thou would rend the heavens, that thou wouldest come down,that the mountains might flow down at Thy presence. Come Lord Jesus,
come quickly!

48

III. THE 1881 REVISIONA BRIEF HISTORICAL SYNOPSISIn 1881 A.D., part of the Church of England (Anglican) decided to revise
the King James Bible (the Authorized Version).1 The Greek New
Testament upon which this translation had been based was the result ofyears of study and work by the brilliant scholar, Desiderius Erasmus(1466–1536 A.D.). Being satisfied with the King James Bible, thenorthern convocation of the Church of England did not want a revision.
However, the southern convocation favored a change and proceeded
alone. A committee of Hebrew and Greek scholars was selected andcharged to change the obsolete spelling, update punctuations, change
archaic words like "concupiscence" to "unholy desires", etc. and thus
update the language. As the Southern convocation was content with thetext itself, no real overhaul of the version was intended. All changes were
to be of minor significance.
That is not what the committee did. The men composing the revisioncommittee went against the directive which the Anglican Church had
given them. Without authorization and in total direct insubordination,rather than merely improve the English they produced a radicallydifferent Greek text – a very different New Testament! They did not even
use the Greek text upon which the King James was based. Cast aside as
worthless were the Greek manuscripts upon which the King James had
been founded, yet these very mss were the basis for the many other
English bibles which had preceded the King James (Great Bible, Bishops',
Matthew's, Geneva etc.). The committee thus produced an entirely
different "Bible". This is one of the least known facts and greatest
guarded secrets within the confines of Christendom. Few people, laymen
or pastors, are aware of these happenings.
We must understand that if we have a version other than the KingJames, it has been based upon a Greek text different from the one used to
produce the King James Bible. Although it was misleadingly named the"Revised" Version, it was not a revision. Instead, the committee altered
the original Greek and substituted a radically different Greek text –introducing c.5,337 alterations – yet almost no one is cognizant of this !
1Jasper J. Ray, God Wrote Only One Bible, (Junction City, OR: Eye Opener Pub., 1980),
pp. 23–24.

49

The 1881 Revision

chapter 3

From whence came this new Greek text? To answer and unravel thiscalls for a look into the past. Several diverse paths must be followed andexamined. Strengthen yourself gentle reader. That which follows is adreadful account of compromise, deception, and betrayal – all directedagainst the Living God, His Word, and His people.

WHAT ARE THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE TODAY?

1

It might be well to begin by considering what manuscript evidence isavailable today as to the true text of the New Testament. We have no
New Testament manuscripts which are complete. We only have pieces,fragments, chapters, books etc. Until 1995, no first century manuscriptsof the New Testament had been discovered (see p. 207). We have 88
Greek papyri manuscripts. The papyri are of newspaper type quality,
usually rolled but sometimes in book form. Most papyri consist of small
fragments and thus do not exhibit much text. Of the 88, only an
estimated thirteen (15%) support Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph
which are the two foremost manuscripts supporting the above mentioned
radical new Greek text; about seventy-five (c.85%) support the Greek
Received Text upon which the King James was founded (hereafter
designated "TR").2
We have 267 Greek Uncials (text written in capital letters, also called"majuscules", designated by "MSS"), none of which is complete. Pages,
chapters, and even books are missing. Of course some are in much better
condition than others. Only nine of these support the Westcott-Hort
critical text upon which the new radical Greek text was based (merely3%) whereas 258 (97%) support the Greek Received Text.3
There are 2,764 Greek cursive manuscripts (written in small letters,
designated by "mss"), often called "minuscules". Thus most of the Greek
witnesses to the true text of the New Testament are the Greek cursives.
Merely twenty-three (1%) sustain the W-H readings which are the Greek
1

Kurt Aland, "The Greek New Testament: Its Present and Future Editions", Journal of
Biblical Literature, LXXXVII (June, 1968), p. 184. Aland is Europe's leading textual
critic and director of the center at Munster, West Germany where c.80% of the extant
Greek MSS, mss and papyri are stored on microfilm. At the writing of his book, Alandlisted 81 papyri; however, a few more have been located since the 1968 publication citedhere, bringing the total to 88.

2

D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible, (Collingswood, NJ: The Bible For Today
Press, 1992), p. 54.

3

Ibid, p. 55.

50

The 1881 Revision

chapter 3

foundation of nearly all the modern translations while 2,741 (99%)
uphold the Received Text.1
We also have 2,143 Greek lectionaries (from a Latin root meaning "toread", manuscripts containing Scripture lessons which were read publicly
in the churches from at least A.D. 400 until the time of the invention of
printing).2 All (100%) of them support the Received Text which underlies
the King James Bible.3 This gives us a total of 5,262 Greek witnesses tothe true text of the New Testament of which 5,217 or ninety-nine percent
are in agreement. This group dates from the fifth century on. The
remainder not only disagree with the 99% majority – but disagree among
themselves. Nevertheless, these few have controlled the camp ofacademia for the past one hundred years. The question, of course, is how
can this be – how did such come to happen? This will be answered in thefollowing chapters, but first a proper foundation must be laid.

BASIC DEFINITIONS
It is important to understand the meaning of "lower" and "higher" textual
criticism with regard to the Bible. In Biblical studies the word "criticism"
is not faultfinding, but in the etymological sense it refers to
distinguishing, deciding, judging or forming a judgment.
•

Higher criticism is a study of the origin and character of the individual booksof the Bible which seeks to determine by whom, under what circumstances, atwhat time, and with what design and/or purpose they were written. By a
study of historical facts and the internal evidence of the various books, thehigher critic seeks to find the circumstances of their origin or source. Higher
criticism can readily go wrong if the critic is purely subjective or governedsolely by his imagination.

•

Lower criticism (or textual criticism) means that we attempt to determine
the text itself from a study of the various Greek manuscripts, old versions,lectionaries etc. currently available, and their history. Because it is thefoundation, it is referred to as "lower criticism". It is the first task. With theaid of these ancient manuscripts and versions, the textual critic seeks tobring the text to the highest possible level of accuracy. In sharp contrast to
higher criticism, lower criticism deals with the concrete phenomena of actual
readings found in manuscripts.

1

Waite, Defending the King James Bible, op. cit., p. 55.

2John W. Burgon, The London Quarterly Review, (October): 1881.

3

Waite, Defending the King James Bible, op. cit., p. 55.

51

The 1881 Revision

chapter 3

ERASMUS RESTORES THE RECEIVED TEXT (GREEK)The Greek upon which the King James translation was based was firstprinted in A.D. 1516 at Basle, Switzerland, under the editorship of thefamous Dutchman, Desiderius Erasmus. As a scholar, Erasmus waswithout peer – the intellectual giant and most renowned scholar of hisday. Erasmus was ever at work, visiting libraries, collecting, comparing,writing and publishing.1 Europe was rocked by his works which exposed
the ignorance of the monks, the superstitions of the priesthood, and thegeneral bigotry and wickedness within the Roman church.
He classified the Greek manuscripts and read the "Fathers" (letters etc.
written by the early Church pastors which taken as a whole containalmost the entire New Testament). Today, many who deprecate the pureteachings of the Received Text sneer at Erasmus and pervert the facts inorder to belittle his work. All this by men who could never haveintellectually tied Erasmus' boot straps. While he lived, Europe was at
his feet. Several times the King of England offered him any position in
the kingdom, at his own price! The Emperor of Germany likewise.
Indeed, the Pope offered him the position of Cardinal. Not being willingto compromise his beliefs or conscience, Erasmus resolutely declined.
France and Spain beckoned him to their realm while Holland proudly
claimed him as her most distinguished son.
Book after book came from his labors. The demand for them wasoverwhelming. His crowning work was the New Testament in Greek. At
last, after one thousand years, the New Testament was printed in its
original tongue (A.D.1516). Astonished and confounded, Europe – theintellectual, civilized cradle of the world – deluged by superstitions,coarse traditions, and monkeries, read the pure story of the Gospel. In a
letter dated 13 August, 1521 to Peter Barbirius, Erasmus wrote:2"I did my best with the New Testament, but it provoked endlessquarrels. Edward Lee pretended to have discovered 300 errors.
They appointed a commission, which professed to have foundbushels of them. Every dinner-table rang with the blunders ofErasmus. I required particulars, and could not have them".
1

D.O. Fuller (ed.), Which Bible?, 3rd ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: International Pub., 1972), pp.
225–226. The material in the next two paragraphs are also derived from these same
pages of Dr. Fuller's classic exposure.

2

James Anthony Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus, (London: Longman's, Green and Co.,
1906; rpt. of 1894 orig.), p. 294. Lee afterwards became Archbishop of York.

52

The 1881 Revision

chapter 3

Consider and reflect – the foremost scholar in the civilized world said thework was his "best". Erasmus would never have put his name on an
unworthy undertaking which would have left him exposed to his critics.
When Erasmus came to Basle, Switzerland in A.D. 1515 for the purposeof assembling a complete Greek New Testament, "For the first edition
Erasmus had before him ten manuscripts,1 four of which he found in
England, and five at Basle … The last codex was lent him by John
Reuchlin … (and) appeared to Erasmus so old that it might have comefrom the apostolic age".2 This last codex, the best at his disposal, wasused for the Revelation. The last six verses were missing so he used theLatin Vulgate version to complete the chapter. For the most part, heutilized a 15th century manuscript for the Gospels but used an 11th or
12th century manuscript on occasion. Erasmus made use of a 12th or
13th century manuscript for the Acts and the Epistles. A 15th century
manuscript of the Acts and the Epistles was also infrequently consulted.
Erasmus' Greek New Testament has been often criticized on the grounds
that he had so little data at his command from which to draw and thatthey were "late" copies. However, Erasmus did not go to the task
unprepared. Although he had only a few late minuscules, he had alreadytranslated a Latin New Testament and in preparation for this labor hadcollected and gathered variant readings from many Greek manuscripts.
He journeyed all over Europe visiting libraries and anyone from whom hecould gather manuscript readings.3 Erasmus organized his findings andmade notes for himself concerning the different readings. These travels
brought him into contact with several hundred manuscripts which
Erasmus divided into two camps – those he considered spurious andthose he deemed genuine.4 The spurious group was a small percentage of
the whole and mainly agreed with the Latin Vulgate readings. Of theseveral hundred, between 90 to 95% had the same text. This group
Erasmus judged to contain the true God given text.
1

Preserved Smith, Erasmus: A Study of His Life, Ideals and Place in History, (New York:
Harper & Brothers Pub., 1923), p. 163. Dr. Smith was Professor of History at Cornell
University. As was reported in my earlier editions, Hills and others state that Erasmus
had only five Greek cursive minuscules of the New Testament at his disposal, The KingJames Version Defended, op. cit., p. 198.

2

Yet modern critics, with their agenda against the TR, assign it to the 10th or 12th century.

3

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 198. .

4

Frederick Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the
New Testament, (London, England: F.C. and J. Rivington Pub., 1815), p. 413.

53

The 1881 Revision

chapter 3

Naturalistic critics think that the presence and availability for Erasmus'
use of these few Basle minuscules was merely an unhappy accident. But
these men do not reckon sufficiently with the providence of God – that
God has promised to overlook His Word. The text which Erasmus
published was really not his own. It was taken virtually without change
from these few manuscripts which God providentially placed at his
disposal. The text contained in these manuscripts eventually came to be
known as the "Textus Receptus" (the Received Text).
To emphasize and demonstrate the above, we quote the late Herman C.
Hoskier. Hoskier gave thirty years to the task of collating a majority of
the available manuscripts containing the text of Revelation. Based upon
the 200 plus extant manuscripts he examined, Hoskier concluded:1"I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on thelargest number of existing MSS in the world of one type, he
could not have succeeded better ... "As Moorman relates, this is truly a powerful example of God's guiding
providence in preserving the true text though but one late mss containing
the Revelation was available to Erasmus at Basle.2

AN ASSESSMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT – THEIR
CHARACTERS
The naturalistic critics say that Erasmus could not have been
providentially guided in the editing of the Textus Receptus because he
was a humanist and a Roman Catholic. They purport that Westcott andHort were epoch making scholars directly guided by God's providence torestore the New Testament, having completed their assignment in 1881.
However, if we compare the character of Erasmus to those of Westcottand Hort, we shall see that such a declaration is vacuous and specious. It
thus becomes necessary to draw a contrast between the lives of Messrs
B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort with Erasmus in order to evaluate thesecharges and claims of the critics as well as to grasp the full impact of thisexposé.
1

Herman C. Hoskier, The John Rylands Bulletin, 19-1922/23, p. 118. Hoskier stood with
Burgon & Scrivener against the Revised text.
He produced the two famous
comprehensive works Codex B and its Allies and Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse.

2Jack A. Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, (Collingswood, NJ:
Bible For Today Press, #1617, 1988), p. 26.

54

The 1881 Revision

chapter 3

Westcott, an Anglican Bishop and professor at Cambridge University,and Hort – also an ordained Anglican priest and professor at Cambridge– came to participate on the 1881 Revision Committee of the King James
Bible under the guise of being Protestant scholars. Actually, they werevery Roman Catholic in doctrine, belief, and practice. Both conservativeand liberal branches of Christendom hold Westcott and Hort in highesteem as if God had greatly used these men to reestablish and restore
the text of the Bible. However, it is most difficult to believe that God
would use two men to perform such a task who did not believe that the
Bible was the verbal Word of God.
Westcott and Hort maintained that they had raised New Testament
textual criticism to the level of an exact science. Thus when they
concluded that the Traditional Text was late and a composite reading
resulting from combining older text-types, they affirmed that this should
be regarded as the true explanation with the same degree of reliance as
one would esteem a Newtonian theorem.1 Indeed, they asserted that
their work had been so scientifically and carefully executed that there
could never be more than one change per thousand words.2 Nevertheless,today most liberal (or lost) modern scholars say that they no longer agreecompletely with the Westcott-Hort theory. Kurt Aland, a foremost leaderof the modern school, is representative when he admits to this in saying:3"We still live in the world of Westcott and Hort with ourconception of different recensions and text-types although thisconception has lost its raison d' être, or, it needs at least to be
newly and convincingly demonstrated. For the increase of the
documentary evidence and the entirely new areas of researchwhich were opened to us on the discovery of the papyri, mean theend of Westcott and Hort's conception".

Still, these same liberals always begin their own investigations with theacceptance of most of the basic W-H tenants. Sadly, most conservative
scholars have accepted the W-H theory of textual history – largely
because most Christian scholars fear scholastic and intellectual ridicule.
1

Westcott, B.F. & F.J.A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek,(NY: Harper & Bros., 1882), p. 107.

2

Ibid., p. 2.

3

Kurt Aland, "The Significance of the Papyri for Progress in New Testament Research",
The Bible in Modern Scholarship, J.P. Hyatt ed., (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1965),
p. 337.

55

The 1881 Revision

chapter 3

To stand against the tide carries with it the stigma of appearing
uninformed and non-progressive, resulting in the loss of credibility andstatus among one's peers. The man of God should never allow his faith to
be intimidated by so-called "scholarship" – for God promised to preserve
His Word.
From published letters written by Westcott and Hort, either to each otheror to family members, the following has been gleaned. On one occasion,
Mr. Westcott was near a monastery and, upon going into the chapel,
found a pieta.1 In writing from France to his fiancée in 1847 concerning
the event he wrote: "Had I been alone, I could have knelt there for hours".
As he was not alone, he had to refrain for to have so done would haverevealed just how Roman his beliefs actually were.
On November 17, 1865 he wrote to Archbishop Benson remarking, "I wish
I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness".2 He statedthat the fall of man was an allegory covering a long succession ofevolutions. He rejected Genesis 1–3 as a literal history and also denied
the fall of man. Westcott felt all women should be named "Mary" so that
his wife Sarah, at his request, added "Mary" to her name and he ever so
addressed her.3 Does that sound like a Protestant?
With regard to spiritual authority in general and especially the Bible's
being the final authority, Mr. Hort said: "Evangelicals seem to me
perverted rather than untrue".4 On October 17, 1865 Hort wrote "I havebeen persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus-worship'
have very much in common in their causes and their results".5 Hortpraised his "prayer boxes" which he carried about with him. These

1

Arthur Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, (London: Macmillian, 1903)
Vol. I, p. 81. The Pieta was a life sized statue of Mary holding Jesus' dead body. For adetailed documentation of W-H's beliefs see: George H. Coy, The Inside Story of theAnglo-American Revised New Testament (Dallas, OR: Itemizer-Observer, 1973) pp. 79–88.

2

Ibid., Vol.I, p. 251.
veneration.

3

Ibid., Vol. I, p. 8, cp. 81.

4

A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, 2 Vols. (London: Macmillan and
Co. Ltd., 1896), Vol. I, p. 400. This is from an October 21, 1858 correspondence to Rev.
Rowland Williams.

5

Ibid., Vol. II, p. 50.

Mariolatry is the Catholic doctrines concerning Mary and her

56

The 1881 Revision

chapter 3

contained statues (idols) to which he prayed.1 Confessing in a 26 October,
1867 letter to Dr. Lightfoot that he was a staunch sacerdotalist,2 Hort
wrote to Westcott regarding the Protestant's teaching of the "priesthoodof the believer" as being a "crazy horror"!3 He believed neither in a literal
Garden of Eden nor that Adam's fall differed in any degree from that ofany of his descendants.4 In a March 4, 1890 letter to the Archbishop of
Canterbury on Old Testament Criticism, Westcott gave his "amen" toHort's last sentiment by penning: "No one now, I suppose, holds that thefirst three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history – I could
never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could thinkthey did".5
Although not wishing to be under the dominion of the Pope, in writing toRev. John Ellerton on July 6, 1848, Hort said: "the pure Romanish view
seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than theevangelical view. ... We dare not forsake the sacraments or God will
forsake us".6 In a December 14, 1846 letter to his father, Hort wrote " ...
Methodism ... is worse than popery ... being more insidious",7 and in an
1864 correspondence to Bishop Westcott he stated his conviction that
"Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary".8 December 4, 1861
Hort wrote Westcott of preferring Greek philosophy and "its precious
truth" to the Christian revelation in which he said he found "... nothing,and should be very much astonished and perplexed to find anything".9
1

Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, op.cit., p. 39. In his fns. on
page 186, Dr. Ruckman cites Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. I,
p. 50; yet the material is not there. He adds that he is referencing Dr. Edward F. Hills
lecture in March of 1969. Although the above statement attributed to Hort by Ruckman
is considered accurate, I have thus far been unable to independently confirm the citationin any of Hort's work at my disposal.

2

A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 86. Belief thatby virtue of ordination into the priesthood, one is given supernatural powers.

3

Ibid., Vol. II, p. 51.

4

A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 78.

5

A. Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 69.

6

A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 76–77.

7

Ibid., Vol. I, p. 49.

8Ibid., Vol. II, p. 31.

9Ibid., Vol. I, p. 449.

57

The 1881 Revision

chapter 3

Both W & H came under the influence of J.H. Newman, an Anglican
Bishop who returned to the Roman church and was made Cardinal.
Newman held a doctrine of angelology in which he taught the Gnostic
view that there were many intermediates between God and His creation.
Westcott and Hort also fell under the spell of Coleridge and Maurice, two
Unitarians who were pantheistic and metaphysical, holding low
estimates of "inspiration of Scripture". Coleridge said "Reason was thedivine logos". Frederick Maurice was the son of a Unitarian minister anda brilliant student of Oxford and Cambridge.
Having become aclergyman in the Church of England, he was dismissed as principal ofKing's College, London, on charges of heresy.
Maurice had acommanding influence on many of the leaders of his day, especially Dr.
Hort who wrote of him November 8, 1871: "... Mr. Maurice has been adear friend of mine for twenty-three years, and I have been deeply
influenced by his books".1 Westcott also admitted he owed much to thewritings of Maurice,2 and Hort's son wrote of his father: "Inundergraduate days, if not before, he came under the spell of Coleridge".3
Thus we have two Anglican priests whose stated beliefs were strongly
Roman. Both accepted Darwin's theory of evolution. Writing to Rev.
John Ellerton, April 3, 1860, Hort declared: "But the book that has
engaged me most is Darwin. ... it is a book that one is proud to becontemporary with. ... My feeling is … the theory is unanswerable".4
Denying that the death of Christ Jesus made the once for all vicarious
atonement for the sinner, W&H choose instead to emphasize atonement
through the incarnation rather than through the crucifixion. Thisview was an attempt to exalt Mary's position as, of course, she wasprominent at the conception and birth of Jesus. Such posture upholds the
Roman Catholic Mass. So their view was that of atonement throughJesus' conception and birth rather than his shed blood !
Further, Westcott doubted the Biblical account of miracles. Writing in
his diary, August 11, 1847, Bishop Westcott penned:5
1

A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 155.

2

A. Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 11.

3

A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 42.

4Ibid., Vol. I, p. 416, also p. 414.

5

A. Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 52.

58

The 1881 Revision

chapter 3"I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively tofeel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in theaccount of it".

Indeed, Westcott and Hort did not even believe the original autographs of
the Scriptures were God inspired! Writing in their "Introduction", they
impiously stated:1"Little is gained by speculating as to the precise point at whichsuch corruptions came in. They may be due to the original
writer, or to his amanuensis if he wrote from dictation, or
they may be due to one of the earliest transcribers". (emphasis
author's)

WESTCOTT AND HORT'S INVOLVEMENT IN SPIRITISM
Westcott and Hort belonged to what Westcott's son referred to as "The
Ghostly Guild". Westcott took a leading role in this society and its
proceedings, the purpose of which was the investigation of ghosts andother supernatural appearances.2 They believed that such things existed.
Concerning this society, Hort wrote to Rev. John Ellerton on December
29, 1851:3"Westcott, Gorham, C.B. Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Lauard, etc.,
and I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts andall supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed tobelieve that such things really exist, and ought to bediscriminated from hoaxes and mere subjective disillusions".

Such is spiritism and is absolutely forbidden by Scripture.
Westcott's son wrote of his father's communing with "saints" especially at
a great cathedral at Petersburg where "there was much company".4 Onthat same page he wrote that his father said, in speaking of the chapel at
Auckland Castle, it was "full" and that he was "not alone" in thedarkness. He was, of course, communing with demonic spirits supposing
1

Westcott and Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek, op. cit.,p. 280.

2

A. Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 117.

3

A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 211.

4

A. Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 312–313.

59

The 1881 Revision

chapter 3that they were ghosts (the souls of men who had lived formerly).
However, the Word of God clearly teaches that "familiar spirits" aredemons impersonating people. They are not the spirits and/or souls of
people who have lived previously.
Both of these men denied the deity of Christ Jesus and they denied theverbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. Moreover, Hort spent the lasteight years of his life working with Westcott in translating the Books of
Wisdom and Maccabees, two uninspired writings.

AN ASSESSMENT OF ERASMUS

1Desiderius Erasmus was a Renaissance humanist2. The illegitimate sonof a Roman Catholic priest, Erasmus was himself an ordained priest. He
taught Greek at Cambridge University from A.D. 1510 to 1514.
As to the criticism that Erasmus was Roman Catholic – in his day, almost
all of Christendom was Roman. He flourished before and at the onset of
the Reformation. Indeed, virtually all the Reformers – many of whomwere priests, had been Catholic. Thus, to fault Erasmus for being
Catholic is not wholly warranted. Erasmus vehemently protested theabuses within the Church. He decried the emphasis on ritual as opposed
to a simple godly life as wrong and believed that such could be correctedby placing into every man's hand the Bible in his own language. All thisproduced a violent reaction from the Romish establishment. He did notwant to completely do away with the ritual of Rome, but he wanted a
1

Edward Freer Hills, Believing Bible Study, (2nd ed., Des Moines, IA: Christian Research
Press, 1977), pp. 189–194.

2

The Christian humanistic elements in Erasmus' thought were completely dissimilar fromthe contemporary connotation of "humanism". The Renaissance connotation was "meneminent for human learning" – especially in relation to the revival of learning inliterature and language (notably Latin and Greek). In his day the term "humanist"
designated a member of a distinct "international intellectual club" that was dedicated to
studying the humanities or liberal arts. Due to his great erudition, depth of thought,
elegance of style and biting irony, Erasmus stood forth among these intellectuals as theunrivaled "prince of humanist". Erasmus' humanism found expression in his insistence
to return to the original sources in order to uncover truth. Thus, his edition of the Greek
N.T. was a natural manifestation of his Christian humanistic bent. By means of this text
he hoped to see the Roman Church renewed from within.
I am indebted to a 2-11-1991 correspondence from Dr. Theodore P. Letis for many of these
insights on Erasmus, especially with regard to his "humanism". Letis taught a course on
Erasmus at New College, Edinburgh University in 1990. This view on Erasmus'
humanism also comes across throughout Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus, op. cit.

60

The 1881 Revision

chapter 3

genuine spirituality to accompany it. Erasmus distrusted Protestantism,viewing it as an evil because of all the division it brought.
As the Reformation drew on, years of studying and editing the New
Testament brought about changes in his theology. Though gradually
becoming less Catholic in doctrine, he never officially left the Roman
Church. This caused most of the Reformers to doubt and suspect him.
Although never joining with them, in his latter years some of Erasmus'
theology became close to that of the Anabaptist. He began to advocate
baptism only after conversion and that it be done by immersion. He evenadvocated re-baptism for those already sprinkled as infants.1
As a Christian humanist, Erasmus was not always consistently Christianin his thinking. Nevertheless, we maintain that God providentially usedhim – much as God used Erasmus' contemporary Martin Luther eventhough Luther became bitterly anti-Semitic in his latter years.2 Erasmus
was not untrue to his ordination vows as were Westcott and Hort.3 Theyneither believed nor held to the thirty-nine articles of the Anglican
church in which they had been ordained. Undeniably, they actually
espoused the cause of Romanism and modernism.
Moreover, neither Erasmus' theology nor his being a Roman Catholic has
anything whatsoever to do with his Greek text. In producing it, hemerely followed the manuscripts which had been preserved by the usage
within the Greek Orthodox Church. Thus, Erasmus did not create the
Textus Receptus. He only recovered it from within a Roman Catholic
setting after years of neglect imposed upon it by that cult. Before this,1

Abraham Friesen, Erasmus, the Anabaptists, and the Great Commission, (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), pp. 21, 45, 50, 53–54. Friesen is professor of
Renaissance and Reformation history at the University of California.

2David Rauch, A Legacy of Hatred, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990), pp. 28–
29. As early as 1523 Luther spoke well of the Jews, expecting them to convert en masse
when they heard the gospel message free from "papal paganism", but by the 1530's hehad become irritated over their continued resistance against conversion. By 1543, near
the end of his life (1546), he wrote 3 derogatory treatises against them. In On The Jews
And Their Lies, Luther referred to the Jews as "venomous", "bitter worms", and"disgusting vermin" – that they all were thieves and should have their synagogues,
schools and homes burned while deporting them to Palestine. He added that the
Talmudic writings should be taken from them, their rabbis forbidden to teach "on pain ofloss of life and limb", safe conduct be disallowed them on the highways, and that they nolonger be able to charge interest on money. Also see Luther The Reformer by James
Kittelson, (Minneapolis, MN: Augsberg Publishing House), pp. 273–274.

3

Hills, Believing Bible Study, op. cit., p. 189.

61

The 1881 Revision

chapter 3

throughout Europe the true text had been preserved intact primarily in
Latin, and it circulated outside the Roman Church among small groups oftrue believers (see p. 167 ff.). Erasmus knew the Vulgate was a corrupted
version of this original older Latin translation, and his humanist values
led him to believe that he was getting to the source of God's truth byturning to the manuscripts of the Greek Church.
One of Erasmus' greatest mistakes was his belief that the Roman
Catholic Church could be reformed from within. The Lord Jesus said thatyou cannot put new wine into old wine skins. If Christ could not reformthe religion of Israel which originally had been the only God-ordained
religion on the earth, who are we to think we can change for the betterthe traditions of any religious organization? By the power of the Holy
Spirit we can influence and cause a positive change in the hearts ofindividuals be they priests, preachers or laymen – but organizations –organizations are married to their doctrines and traditions!
One recent example of such a change of heart is that of Dr. Frank
Logsdon, Co-founder of the New American Standard Version (NASV),
who stated before his recent death:1"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New
American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the
Lord...I wrote the format; I helped interview some of thetranslators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. Whenquestions began to reach me, at first I was quite offended...I
used to laugh with others...However, in attempting to answer, I
began to sense that something was not right about the New
American Standard Version. I can no longer ignore these
criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them...The deletions
are absolutely frightening...there are so many...I wrote my very
dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced torenounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to
my heart...I don't want anything to do with it. [T]he finest
leaders that we have today...haven't gone into it [the newversion's use of a corrupted Greek text], just as I hadn't gone
into it...that's how easily one can be deceived. [Y]ou can say the
Authorized Version [KJB] is absolutely correct. How correct?
100% correct!...I believe the Spirit of God led the translators of
the Authorized Version. If you must stand against everyone else,
stand..."

1

D.W. Cloud (ed.), "From the NASV to the KJV", O Timothy Magazine, Vol. 9 Issue 1, (OakHarbor, WA: 1992): pp. 1–14.

62

IV. THE "TEXTUS RECEPTUS"ERASMUS AND THE WORK HE PRODUCED
Erasmus knew almost all of the important variant readings known toscholars today – more than 470 years ago.1 This may be proven from aperusal of his notes. Dr. Frederick Nolan (1784–1864 A.D.) was a Greek
and Latin scholar who, as an eminent historian, researched Egyptian
chronology and spent twenty eight years tracing the Received Text to its
apostolic origin. After surveying Erasmus' notes, Nolan recorded:2"With respect to manuscripts, it is indisputable that he was
acquainted with every variety which is known to us; having
distributed them into two principle classes, one of whichcorresponds with ... the Vatican manuscript ... the church, he
was aware, was infested with Origenists and Arians; andaffinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently
conveyed some suspicion that its text was corrupted".

In producing his first edition, Erasmus was under an incredible work
load. Due to publication problems and deadline pressure, his first edition
had many typographical errors, misprints, and misspellings. This led tomuch undue criticism. His work was greatly disfigured only in the sense
mentioned, but the Text was providentially protected. God has notpreserved the Text miraculously for then there would have been no suchglosses, and all the various uncials and cursives would read the same,word for word. In the case of providential guidance, we can see that there
is a human as well as a divine side to the preservation of the Text.3 For
the most part, these errors were eliminated by Erasmus in his later
editions. In fact, his 1522 third edition differs from his second only in its
introductory notes. Such things as these are, however, not factors which
need to be taken into account insofar as evaluating the "Textus
Receptus" – a designation by which his work later came to be known.
The year after Erasmus published, Luther used the Textus Receptus (TR)for the basis of a German translation of the New Testament. Shortly
1

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 198.

2

Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, op. cit., pp. 413–415.

3

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., 202.

63

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

thereafter, God – using Luther and his translation, brought about theReformation.
Luther and Erasmus knew each other. They did not always agree. Oneof the chief areas of disagreement between them was Luther's convictionthat the Roman church was incapable of being reformed, and he thoughtthat Erasmus should join him in leaving. Believing that he could betterbring about reform by working from within the system, Erasmus did notjoin Luther. In this, Erasmus was quite wrong. Erasmus' humanisticabhorrence of violence and his commitment to the unity of Christendom
simply made it impossible for him to join the Lutheran Reformation.

TYNDALE TRANSLATES THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS INTOENGLISH
William Tyndale, a godly young English priest (A.D. 1494–1536), left
Oxford to study Greek at Cambridge under the influence of Erasmus.
Tyndale was so gifted and fluent in seven languages (Hebrew, Greek,
Latin, Italian, Spanish, English, and French) that one would think each
was his native tongue. It was Tyndale's great desire to put the Bible into
the language of the English speaking people. Relying c.99% on the 1522
3rd edition of Erasmus' Greek text, in 1526 A.D. Tyndale fulfilled that
longing, producing the first complete printed N.T. in the English tongue.
As a result of his publication, the Roman Church despised, hated andpersecuted Tyndale. In A.D. 1535 at Antwerp, Belgium, he was betrayedby Henry Phillips and made the prisoner of Charles V, the Holy Roman
Emperor. Found guilty of heresy for translating and publishing theBible, in October 1536 Tyndale was tied to the stake whereupon he criedout in a fervent loud voice: "Lord, open the King of England's eyes". He
was then strangled and his body publicly burned.
Following the completion of the New Testament, most of the men whotranslated the Bible manuscripts into the language of the common people
were put to death. History reveals the surprising fact that it wasmembers of the clergy, those who were supposed to be the ministers ofChrist, who directed and carried out nearly all of the deeds of martyrdom
and the cruelties which accompanied them. For the past 150 years theattack has become more "civilized". Now members of the clergy andecclesiastic scholars merely carry out these cruelties and atrocities
against their translations, while safely sitting in air conditioned offices –often supported by tithe money.

64

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

LATER EDITIONS OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS
Later, Stephens (Stephanus) updated Erasmus' work with several
editions, the best being his third in 1550. It is this form of the Textus
Receptus that is generally preferred by English scholars. The difference
between Stephens' undertaking and the last edition of Erasmus is almost
imperceptible such that for practical purposes, Erasmus' and Stephens'
texts are the same.
In 1598, Beza published his fifth edition, again using Erasmus' Greek
text as his foundation. Beza's fifth is the actual edition upon which theKing James was principally based. It reads almost the same as the last
update of Erasmus.1 Finally in 1624, the Elzevir brothers of Holland
produced an edition. It was at that time the text was given thedesignation of "Textus Receptus" which means the "Received Text" (i.e.,
received from God). They said they had not altered the manuscripts inany way and that they considered the text in their hands to have been
received directly from God. The second Elzevir edition (1633) was
generally adopted as the TR on the European Continent. All of thesemen believed they were working with the infallible Words of God as He
had given them.
How much do the editions differ over the span from 1550 to 1624?
Elzevir differed from Stephens, for example, in Mark only 19 times.
Compare that with Codex Vaticanus B (a 4th century uncial MSS which
is currently accepted as the most reliable, almost to the exclusion of allothers, of the Greek manuscripts by most modern text critics). B differswith Sinaiticus Aleph (Hebrew designation = a) 652 times in the Gospelof Mark and with another uncial manuscript (D) in 1,944 places. In fact,
there is only a total of 287 variants from Stephens' 1550 work to the
Elzevir brothers' work of 1624. These few differences are almost
negligible for they are all spelling. The issue becomes one of whether one
spells "colour" or "color"? Thus, the text has been protected by God.
Again, God's preservation of the New Testament text was not by amiracle but providentially. It is not God breathed and God inspired in
the same exact sense that the "originals" were but it was, beyond all
reasonable doubt, God guided and God preserved.
1

A.T. Robertson, An Introduction To The Textual Criticism Of The New Testament,(London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1925), pp. 18–20; Robertson says all 9 of Beza's editions
are practically reprints of Stephanus – which was almost that of Erasmus' [George Ricker
Berry, The Interlinear Literal Translation of The Greek New Testament With the
Authorized Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1977), p. ii.]

65

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

There were hundreds of manuscripts which Erasmus could haveexamined and he did, but he only used a few. That did not matterbecause the vast bulk of all the Greek manuscripts is practically the
Textus Receptus. If the ones which Erasmus used were typical then he
had what the vast majority said. As a matter of fact, the manuscripts
which Erasmus used differed only in insignificant detail from the totalbulk. Basically it is Erasmus' work which is the foundation of the KingJames Bible.
We are not saying that the "thous, thines and thees" are infallibly God
breathed words. The scribes and printers who produced the copies werenot "inspired" as was Moses, Isaiah, Paul, John etc., but they were Godguided. So by faith in God's promises to preserve His Word, we knowthat the Textus Receptus is the God-guided revision of the majority text.
What we are saying is that the Greek Text upon which the King Jameswas founded, is the Word of God. Moreover, that God providentiallywatched over that Text, and that the King James is the only English
translation in the world today which is faithful to that Greek Text.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE
Many detracting inferences have been made in recent years such as,"Well, you know how the King James came into being ... It was all doneby royal decree of King James ... a politically motivated private enterpriseetc". Or they tell us "You can't trust the King James – it is so full of
mistakes and scribal errors". But such statements are simply not thetruth and do not reflect the historical facts.
To begin with, King James did not initiate the idea of a new translation.
After a forty five year reign, Elizabeth – only hours before her death,
named her cousin James VI, Monarch of Scotland, to succeed her asJames I on the throne of England. The year was 1603 A.D. There was at
this time in the Church of England a number of reformers called"Puritans" because of their avowed purpose to purify the English churchby removing from it all the remnants of Catholicism. The Puritan
leadership was under Dr. John Renyolds (Rainolds) who was president of
Corpus Christi College at Oxford. In 1604, he suggested to King Jamesthat there be produced a translation which all the people could
understand, read and love. Himself a theologian and student of the
Scriptures from Presbyterian Scotland, James I subsequently approved
the suggestion.
The undertaking began when approximately a thousand ministers sent apetition, which later came to be known as the "Millenary Petition", to66

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

King James.1 Dr. Renyolds was made spokesman for the thousand
ministers who represented about one-tenth of the clergy of the Church of
England. They requested several "reforms" and eventually, at a meetingat Hampton Court, Renyolds proposed the undertaking of a newtranslation of the Bible on the grounds that the "Great Bible" of 1539 wasa very corrupt translation. Although raised up using the Geneva Bible,
King James had become displeased over its numerous marginal notes andcomments, many of which clashed with his belief in the Divine Right ofKings. It was finally agreed that a new translation, absolutely true to theoriginal Greek text, be made which would not have any footnotes orcomments.2 Thus, James I acceded to their request, but he did notinitiate the procedure. It was not launched by the "throne" but at therequest of a thousand ministers. Further, clergy and laymen from both
the Anglicans and Puritans were included in its translation.
Thus, with King James' blessings, Bishop Bancroft (soon to become
Archbishop of Canterbury) met with the Dean of Westminster and theProfessors of Hebrew at Oxford and Cambridge for the purpose ofsuggesting the names of the men who should work on the translation.
Fifty-four of the best scholars in England were selected, but some died
before the work began whereas others could not participate in theundertaking because of previous work commitments. Thus, only fortyseven3 actually engaged in the task (plus nine others whose participation
seems to have been somewhat limited). None of the translators was paid
for his work.
When the work began the forty-seven were divided into six groups: two at
Westminster, one for the Old Testament and one for the New; two at
Oxford, one for each Testament; and two at Cambridge, one for the Old
Testament and one for the Apocrypha. For three years, from 1604 to
1606, each man in the group first worked out his own translation on thechapters assigned to him, guided by fifteen specific rules. Some of themost important of these rules were:1

Alexander W. McClure, The Translators Revived, (Litchfield, MI: Maranatha Bible
Society, 1858), p. 57.

2

Ibid., pp. 58–59.

3

Of the 47, 4 were college presidents, 6 were bishops, 5 were deans, 39 had master's
degrees, 30 held doctorates, 41 were university professors, and 13 in Hebrew as well as 10
in Greek were skilled to a rarely attained extraordinary magnitude: Eldred Thomas,
Bible Versions, (Dallas, TX: Research Educational Foundation, Inc., 1978), p. 12.

67

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

1.

The Bishops' Bible (1568) was to be followed as a guide with as little
alteration as the truth of the original texts would permit.

2.

No marginal notes were to be attached except for the explanation of
Greek or Hebrew words or for providing cross-references.

3.

Tyndale's translation (c.1526), Matthew's (1537), Coverdale's (1535),
The Great Bible (1539), and the Geneva (1560) were to be used when
they agreed better with the text than the Bishops' Bible.

The same portion of Scripture was translated by each of the other men ofthat company. Afterward, all the members of the group came together
and thrashed out the differences. When a book was completed in thismanner, it was sent to the other five groups for review and suggestions.
Two men from each group formed a special screening committee to
examine the final product. The meetings of the three companies took
another three years (1607–1609). Each of these men believed that the
text at his disposal was the infallible Word of God. There has never been
a committee working on a translation of the Bible with such scholarshipand dedication. Regarding this, McClure states:1"As to the capability of those men, ... by the good providence ofGod, their work was undertaken in a fortunate time. Not only
had the English language, that singular compound, then ripened
to its full perfection, but the study of Greek, and of the oriental
tongues, and of rabbinical lore, had then been carried to agreater extent in England than ever before or since. Thisparticular field of learning has never been so highly cultivatedamong English divines.

Most were professors and/or preachers. The 12th rule required every
Bishop to have small portions of the project circulated and displayed inpublic places throughout his diocese as it came from the translators' pens
and to encourage recommendations.2 This placed the entire work open to
the populace so that the whole nation of England could take part in its
production. Hundreds of laymen, priests, and preachers who knew Greek
and/or Hebrew offered suggestions.
Whereas the King's translators were instructed that the Bishops' Bible
was to be their main guide and it to be altered only "as the truth of the1

McClure, The Translators Revived, op. cit., pp. 63–64.

2

Ibid., pp. 66 & 69.

68

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

original will permit", only about four percent of the King James Bible is,in fact, drawn from that version. The new translation agreed much morewith the Geneva than with any other.1 Over ninety percent of thelanguage of the New Testament is from Tyndale's translation. The
rhythmical diction and style imparting literary grace, majesty, andcharacter found throughout the KJB came from this martyr's pen.
For the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, they used the four Hebrew
Bibles then available. For the New Testament Greek text, they used thework of Theodore Beza, the associate of John Calvin, who had revised the
Greek texts of Erasmus and Stephens (Stephanus). Besides these, manyother ancient translations were referred to and considered. Words whichwere not in the original language but which the translators foundnecessary to add in order to complete the sense, were especially flagged
and appear in our modern King James Bibles in italics.
When all the books had been translated, two men from each company at
Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford came together and carefully
considered the completed work of each of the three companies. Finally,
two men reviewed that product; thus each Scripture was examined atleast 14 times. Consequently, we have seen that the revision of 1611 wasneither a private endeavor nor was it an enterprise of King James VI ( I )as Sir Frederick Kenyon aptly reminds us:2
"The revision [of 1611] was the work of no single man and of nosingle school. It was the deliberate work of a large body oftrained scholars and divines of all classes and opinions, who had
before them, for their guidance, the labours of nearly a century
of revision. The translation of the Bible had passed out of thesphere of controversy. It was a national undertaking inwhich no one had any interest at heart save that of producing
the best possible version of the Scriptures". (author's emphasis)

Thus, when the final product was brought before the church in publishedform, there were no surprises. All was done in the open and above board.
There were no smoke filled back room decisions made with regard to theultimate translation. Indeed, profit was of no consideration. Over theyears, several editions have been issued to correct typesetting errors,
spelling, the addition of marginal references, italics in place of the1

McClure, The Translators Revived, op. cit., p. 67.

2

Sir Frederick Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 5th ed. (London: Eyre &Spottiswoode, 1958), p. 306.

69

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

original Roman typeface, and so forth. As these editions have been
largely misreported, we must now address this matter.

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE CHANGES IN THE KING JAMESBIBLE?
It has often been asserted that the King James Bible has been revised
four times in the past. This is offered as proof that no valid objection
should be forthcoming to continued revision and endless newtranslations. The reality is that there have been several editions of thetext but no revisions have been made. We shall elaborate and clarify on
this important issue.
The printing press was invented in 1450 by the German Johann
Gutenburg. Although this was 161 years before the 1611 KJB edition,
the printing apparatus had changed very little. The type was set byhand, one character at a time. The process was quite slow, difficult andtedious, hence frequent errors resulted in all publications. The firstedition of the King James also contained such printing errors, but thesewere not the kind of textual alterations which freely occur in modern
versions. These were obvious and simple printing oversights. The second
printing published later in 1611 corrected about 100 such textual
differences. Of course, such errors do not render a Bible or any otherbook worthless – they merely need to be removed in subsequent editions.
The first two alleged "major revisions" of the King James Bible took place
within 27 years of its first edition. The 1629 edition was but a carefulcorrection of earlier printing errors. Only nine years later, a second socalled major revision was distributed. Dr. Samuel Ward and John Bois,1
two of the original translators, participated in both of these undertakings.
However F.H.A. Scrivener (see footnote below) describes this as merely
being a reinstatement of words, phrases and clauses overlooked by the1611 printers – thereby amending these errors. Thus, 72% of theapproximately 400 textual corrections in the KJB were completed by1

Much of that which follows has been adapted from The King James Version of 1611, The
Myth of Early Revisions, David F. Reagan, Pastor of Trinity Baptist Temple, Knoxville,
TN. Also see McClure, The Translators Revived, op. cit., p. 194 (Bois read the entire
Hebrew O.T. at age 5 and wrote Hebrew at 6, p. 200). Dr. Reagan utilized data from
F.H.A. Scrivener's The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), 1884. Dr.
Scrivener was a conservative and godly member of the 1881 Revision Committee (seepage 119).

70

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 41638. Hence, we find that instead of two major revisions, there were twostages of a single process – namely, the purging of early printing errors.
Similarly, the last two "major revisions" were but two stages instandardizing the spelling. Very few textual corrections were necessary
for these two publications (1762 and 1769). Thus, the term "four majorrevisions" is a misnomer, and as such, is grossly misleading.
Much is made by the detractors of the KJB claiming as many as 75,000
changes in the King James Bible since 1611. At first glance, this does
seem to be a problem. However, before citing examples, the reader isenjoined to keep in mind that the real issue at hand is that of final
authority. Further, the reader needs to be appraised that the original
King James Bible is very different in appearance than those publishedtoday. Were one to go to a museum to view an original, he would findthat he could hardly read it. Indeed, many of the words that were legible
would be strangely spelled. The changes fall into three categories:(1) printing changes, (2) spelling changes and (3) textual changes.
The printing type used for the original edition was Gothic. The type styleor font that the reader has before him and that with which he is familiar
is Roman. Although the Roman type style originated fairly early, Gothic
had been the predominate form for many years in most European
countries. The printers of the original King James chose the Gothic
because of its beauty and eloquence. Several of the letters are noticeably
different in appearance.
The Gothic "s" looks like the Roman "s" when used as a capital letter or at
the end of a word, but when it occurs as a lower case "s" at the beginning
or in the middle of a word, the letter looks similar to our "f". Over 30,000
changes were of this kind, as in Mofes to Moses. The Gothic "v" looks likea Roman "u" and vice versa. Now we can see why our "w" is called a"double-u" rather than "double-v". The "v" was changed to "u" 45,281
times (i.e., Dauid to David, wiues to wives, vnto to unto). The Gothic "j"looks like our "i", hence Iudah becomes Judah, iudged to judged etc.
Remember, these are not spelling changes – they are simply type stylechanges. These changes reflect a large percentage of the "thousands" ofalterations in the KJB, but obviously such modifications do not corrupt orin any way harm the actual text.
As to the changes in orthography (spelling), we remind our reader thatmost histories date the beginning of Modern English around 1500.
Hence, by 1611 the grammatical structure and basic vocabulary of71

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

present day English had already been firmly established. However, thespelling did not stabilize at the same time. In the 1600's spelling waslargely phonetic as standards had not yet been established. Even among
the well educated, an author would spell the same word several different
ways, often in the same book and even on the same page. It was not until
the eighteenth century that spelling began to be uniform. Therefore, inthe last half of that century, the spelling of the 1611 KJB was
standardized.
Over 30,000 additional changes involved dropping the final "e" off of theold English spellings such as – sunne to sun, fowle to fowl, goe to go, shee
to she, nowe to now etc. Double vowels and double consonants were morecommon such as mee to me and ranne to ran. Other changes included
ftarres to stars, ynough to enough, moneth to month, yeeres to years
grinne to grin; flying to fleeing; neezed to sneezed etc.
These typographical and spelling changes account for almost all of the socalled "thousands" of alterations since 1611. Obviously none of them canbe truly said to in any way alter the text. Thus they cannot honestly becompared with the thousands of actual textual changes which blatantly
appear in the modern versions. The significance of this simply cannot be
overstated.
As to the actual textual differences between the 1611 edition and ourpresent editions, there are some variations – but they are not of themagnitude of a revision. Rather, they are merely the correction of early
obvious printing errors. They are not textual changes made to alter thereading. This may be readily ascertained by (a) the character of thechanges; (b) the frequency of the changes throughout the Bible; and(c) the time the changes were made.
In the first printing, words were occasionally inverted. A plural may
have been in singular form or vice versa, and at times a word was miswritten for one that was similar. A few times a word or even a phrase
was inadvertently omitted. The omissions were obvious and did not
portray the doctrinal implications of those found in modern translations.
Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener compiled a list of the variations between the 1611
edition and later printings. A random sampling giving the first textual
correction on consecutive left hand pages is depicted in the following
chart.

72

The "Textus Receptus"

1611 Reading

chapter 4

Present Reading

Year
Corrected

1

this thing

this thing also

1638

2

shalt have remained

ye shall have remained

1762

3

Achzib, nor Helbath,
nor Aphikof Achzib, nor of Helbath,nor of Aphik

1762

4

requite goodrequite me good

1629

5

this book of the Covenant

the book of this Covenant

1629

6

chief rulers

chief ruler

1629

7

And Parbar

At Parbar

1638

8

For this cause

And for this cause

1638

9

For the king had appointed

for so the king had appointed

1629

10 Seek goodseek God

1617

11 The cormorant

But the cormorant

1629

12 returned

turned1769

13 a fiery furnacea burning fiery furnace

1638

14 The crowned

Thy crowned

1629

15 thy right doeth

thy right hand doeth

1613

16 the wayes side

the way side1743

17 which was a Jew

which was a Jewess1629

18 the city

the city of the Damascenes

1629

19 now and everboth now and ever1638

20 which was of our fathers

which was our fathers

1616

Gentle reader, in the preceding chart you have seen 5% of all the textual
changes made in the King James Bible in 375 years. Only one (#10) has
serious doctrinal implications. Here, the 1611 reading of Psalm 69:32 has
73

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4"seek good" where the correct reading should be "seek God". But thespelling similarity of the words "good" and "God" reveal the problem to be
merely that of a weary type setter's having misread the proof. This error
was so obvious that it was caught and corrected in 1617, only six years
after the first printing and well before the first so-called 1629 revision.
Dr. David Reagan reports (p. 11) that his examination of Scrivener's
entire appendix resulted in this as being the only doctrinal variation.
Both the character and the frequency of the changes disclose them to be
but printing oversights. Yet scholars, even fundamental conservatives,
refer to the thousands of modifications made to the 1611 over the years as
if they were on a par with the changes in recent versions. They are not.
Again, the overwhelming majority is either type style or spelling changes.
The few that remain are clearly corrections of printing errors made due tothe tedious nature involved in the early printing process. These few
printing errors serve to demonstrate that God chose to preserve the textof His Word, not by continuous miracle, but providentially.
The sample list given heretofore demonstrates how meticulously
Scrivener was in compiling all the variations. Yet, even with such greatcare only approximately 400 variations between the 1611 edition and themodern copies could be identified and listed by him. Remember, there
were c.100 variations found and corrected between the first two Oxford
editions which were both printed in 1611. The average variation (after
c.375 years) is but one correction every three chapters. And as we haveseen, these are "chief rulers" to "chief ruler", "And Parbar" to "At Parbar"
etc. The early date at which they were corrected also bears witness thatthey were merely corrected printing errors.
Moreover, the great majority of the 400 corrections were made within a
few years of the original printing. For example, from our sampling of thetwenty corrections (see p. 73), one was made in 1613, one in 1616, one in
1617, eight in 1629, five in 1638, one in 1743, two in 1762, and one in1769. Hence, 16 out of 20 corrections, or 80%, were made within twentyseven years of the 1611 printing. Such is hardly the long drawn out
series of revisions that the scholars would have us believe. Another study
detailing every other page of Scrivener's appendix revealed that 72% of
the textual corrections had been made by 1638. Thus, there is no"revision" issue. As previously stated, the main purpose of the 1629 and
1638 editions was the correction of earlier printing errors. The main
purpose of the 1762 and 1769 editions was the standardization ofspelling.

74

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

To illustrate the import of all this, the 1638 edition of the entire book of
Ecclesiastes reads exactly like our present edition. All that has changedin Ecclesiastes during the past 350 years is that the spelling has beenstandardized! By the time of the 1638 edition, all the printing errors inthat book had been corrected and the Roman type applied.
To summarize, the character of the textual changes is that of obvious
printing errors, not changes made to alter the reading. The frequency of
the textual changes is meager, averaging only one every three chapters.
The time frame of the textual changes is early, about three-fourths
occurring within twenty seven years of the first printing. These
particulars establish that there were no true revisions in the sense of
updating the language or correcting translation errors. There were
only editions which corrected early typographical errors.
Other such textual changes have been: saveth to "and he saveth"; to be
joyful to "and to be joyful"; flix to "flux"; upon the house to "housetop";unperfect to "imperfect"; have care to "have a care"; sometimes to"sometime"; forsomuch to "forasmuch"; such wrong to "such wrongs"; will
fat to "fatten"; northwards to "northward"; cheweth cud to "the cud";noondays to "noon day"; nor scales to "and scales"; disallow to"disallowed"; in power to "of power"; I start to "I started" etc.
Also, some later printing errors occasionally did creep in, e.g., "Printers"
instead of Princes – Psa.119:161, 1701 edition; "place makers" instead ofpeace makers – Mat.5:9, 1807 edition; from "good" works instead of fromdead works – Heb.9:14, 1807 edition, etc.
Over 5,000 of the remaining changes were in substituting periods forcommas, colons for commas, semi-colons for colons and capital letters forlower case.
In stark contrast, the 36,191 changes we are supposed to accept in the
new Greek texts of Nestle, Aland, and Metzger include attacks on the
Deity of Christ (I Tim 3:16), the Virgin Birth (Luk.2:33), the Ascension(Luk.24:51–52), the Bible (Luk.4:4), and the Resurrection (Acts 1:3; see
Ch. II). Significantly, the spelling (orthography) of Vaticanus B and
Sinaiticus does not agree with that of first century Greek, yet even thetenth century Textus Receptus manuscripts do so concur. Furthermore,
the King James is by far the translation easiest from which to memorize
because it is written in prose. It is most difficult to memorize Scripture
from any of the other translations.

75

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

As to the KJB proper, there are problems. As to the problems and how
significant they are depend upon whom one asks. The solutions run a
gamut of incredible differences of opinion with no consensus in sight. The
learned New Testament text critic Herman C. Hoskier claimed to know of
only one serious problem.1 Hoskier said that the Greek word "poimna"(ποιμνη) should be translated "flock", not "fold", in John 10:16:"This I consider to be the only matter of any great consequencewhich must be amended in any revision, but as everybody knows
about this, it is not likely to mislead" (p. 697).

All other problems,2 this great scholar regarded as merely "academic".

1

Herman C. Hoskier, "The Authorized Version of 1611", Bibliotheca Sacra 68; (October,1911), pp. 693–704.

2

A typical "problem" or "unfortunate translation" offered against the KJB is found in Acts
12:4 where the Greek word "pascha" (πασχα) is rendered "Easter" instead of "Passover".
Although "Passover" is the usual correct rendering, the context of Acts 12:1–4 isunmistakable that it should not so be translated in this instance. Modern versions
translate "pascha" as "Passover" here and in so doing rather than correcting a mistake,they actually insert one. As the King James is the only English translation available
today that has made this proper distinction, this apparent error sets it clearly apart fromand above all others (the 1534 William Tyndale, the 1557 Geneva Bible, the 1539 Great
Bible [Cranmer's] as well as other pre-King James English versions also read "Easter").
To explain, our computer reveals that the word "pascha" occurs 29 times in the New
Testament. The KJB translators rendered it "Passover" the other 28 places in which itappears. The reader is reminded of the meticulous procedure to which the King James
Bible was subjected and the large number of different scholars throughout England thatviewed its production all along the way (see p. 66 ff.). The point that is being made isthat these learned men clearly knew that pascha normally should mean "Passover" – forthey so translated it the other 28 times. Therefore, Acts 12:4 is neither a mis-translationon their part nor an oversight! It is the result of a deliberate clear calculated decision on
the part of many, many dedicated Christian scholars of the first rank. What did the 1611
translators (and their predecessors) perceive that led them to this obviously intentional
choice which modern scholars have failed to observe?
They were guided by the Holy Spirit to correctly discern the context and not merely
blindly follow vocabulary and lexical studies. The Passover was to be slain on the 14th of
Nisan and the seven days following were the feast of unleavened bread (Nisan 15–21).
Verse 3 informs us that Peter was arrested during the "days of unleavened bread". Thus,
the Passover had already come and gone. Herod (Agrippa) could not possibly have beenreferring to the Passover in this citation. The next Passover was a year away and thecontext of these verses does not permit that Herod intended to keep Peter incarcerated
for so prolonged a period and then to put him to death a year later. No – it is clear that
Herod purposed to slay Peter very soon thereafter. The next key is that of Herod himself(12:1). Herod Agrippa was not a Jew. He was a pagan Idumaean (Edomite) appointed by
Rome. He had no reason to keep the Jewish Passover. But there was a religious holy day

76

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

The point we have labored to clarify is that the King James Bible has notbeen revised, only purified. We have no valid reason to doubt that theone we hold in our hands is the very Word of God preserved for us in the
English language. The authority for its veracity lies neither in theoriginal 1611 printing nor in the character of King James VI ( I ), thescholarship of the 1611 translators, the literary accomplishments of
Elizabethan England, nor even in the Greek Received Text. Our
authority for the infallibility of the English Bible lies in the promise of
God to preserve His Word.

WHY THEN ARE NEW TRANSLATIONS THOUGHT
NECESSARY?
The question should be asked, "Why in 1881 (and even today) did we needa new Bible?" There are at least five reasons for this rational:
1.

The many archaic words, the "eth's" as in doeth, knoweth, heareth etc.,
and the "thee's" and "thou's";

2.

The existence of the many variant (different) readings in the extant
Greek manuscripts;

that the whole world honored and does to this day – the ancient festival of Astarte, also
known in other languages as Ishtar (pronounced "Easter").
This festival has always been held late in the month of Nisan (c.April). Originally, it was
a commemoration of the earth's "regenerating" itself after the "death" of winter. It
involved a celebration of reproduction and fertility; hence, the symbols of the festival
were the rabbit and the egg – both well known for their reproductive abilities. The
central figure of worship was the female deity and her child (see p. 98 ff.). The Scripturesrefer to her as the "queen of heaven" (Jer.7:18; 44:15–27), the mother of Tammuz(Ezk.8:14), and Diana (or Artemis, Acts 19:23–41) and they declare that the pagan world
worships her (Acts 19:27). These perverted rituals took place at sunrise on Eastermorning (Ezk.8:13–16) whereas Passover was celebrated in the evening (Deu.16:6).
Thus, the Jewish Passover was held in mid-Nisan and the pagan festival Easter was held
later that same month. As we have shown, Acts 12:4 cannot refer to Passover for theverse tells us that "then were the days of unleavened bread". Thus, in context, it must be
referring to another holy day (holiday) that is at hand, but after Passover. This suggeststhat Herod was a follower of that world wide cult and thus had not slain Peter during thedays of unleavened bread because he wanted to wait until Easter. As the Jews had put
Jesus to death during Passover, Herod's reason for delaying the execution certainly was
not fear of their objection to such a desecration of their religious holy days. The KingJames translators realized that to render "pascha" as "Passover" in this instance wasboth impossible and erroneous. They correctly discerned that the word could include any
religious holy day occurring in the month of Nisan. The choice of "Easter" wasmethodical, exact, and correct.

77

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

3.

The finding of a significant number of ancient Greek manuscripts of the
Bible in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries older than those used by
Erasmus and believed, by many scholars, to be closer to the text of theapostles' autographs;

4.

Itching ears – winds of doctrine; and5.

Greed for Money.

We shall address each of these five, the first three being the so-called"justification" for the "need" to modernize and revise the King James
Bible.
(1) ARCHAIC WORDS

There are only several hundred obsolete or archaic words remaining
within the 1611 King James Bible – words such as "incontinent" (lack ofself control, I Cor. 7:5) and "concupiscence" (unholy desires, Rom. 7:8).
These few could and should be brought up to date. The "eth" endings
could also easily be changed ("doeth" to "do") although care must be taken
as to its rendering else many times the actual meaning may be lost. Thisis due to Greek verb tenses which do not exist in English. For example,
often the Greek word rendered "doeth" reflects continuous action. In suchcases, a simple changing to "do" would not represent a faithfultranslation from the Greek. The "eth" ending which allows for suchmeanings thus has served a vital function in the King James Bible.
With regard to "ye" (plural), "thee" (singular) and "thou" (singular) which
we find dispersed throughout the 1611 Bible, it is shocking to discover thegreat value that these 2nd person pronouns serve. O.T. Allis informs usthat these were not contemporary words even in 1611!1"It is incorrect to claim that the 'thou' represents the usage ofthe 1611 period when the AV was prepared and that that usage
is out of date and should be rejected for that very reason. Such aclaim misrepresents the facts. The AV usage is not Jacobean or
17th century English. It is biblical English. The Greek of the
New Testament like the Hebrew of the Old Testamentdistinguishes between the singular and the plural forms of thesecond person. The AV makes this distinction simply because
NT Greek does so, and because that is the only way totranslate the Bible correctly". (author's emphasis)
1

Oswald T. Allis, The New English Bible, The New Testament of 1961, A Comparative
Study. (n.p., 1963), p. 69. Dr. E.F. Hills concurs (The King James Version Defended, op.
cit., p. 218).

78

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

The second person in English is rendered "you" in both the singular andthe plural. Thus, when "you" is employed in a modern translation, one
does not know if it is to be understood as singular or plural. However,"you", "ye", and "your" are always plural in the King James Bible whereas"thy", "thou", "thee" and "thine" always denote the singular – how easy.

1st Person
2nd Person
3rd Person

SingularI
Thou, Thee, Thy, Thine
He, She, ItPluralWe
Ye, You, Your
They

In Luke 22:31–32, for example, the King James Bible reads:
22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired tohave you [plural! all of the apostles] ... 32 But I have prayed for thee[singular – Peter] ...

Other translations if desiring to indicate such would have to supply afootnote to convey this, and the reader might well not notice it. Anotherexample is John 3:7.
Thus by allowing "you" to stand for both, the pronounal singular/pluraldistinction has been lost in the new translations. Tyndale knew of such
subtleties, and he deliberately revived words that had already passed
from common usage to handle faithfully the translating into English. In
doing so, he actually created a special variety of English – a Bible
English – for the purpose of clearly conveying the precise meaning.
Tyndale thereby elevated the English usage by Scripture rather thanaccommodating Scripture to the English vernacular.1(2) VARIANT READINGS

It was Luther's translation of Erasmus' Greek text into German that was
the main weapon which the Holy Spirit used in bringing about the1

Jacob Van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1978), pp.
48–49. Also see: T.P. Letis, The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing
Debate, (Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1987), pp. 84-104. That
there is a great difference between AV English & the wordy, pretentious Elizabethan
style may be readily seen by comparing the KJB's preface with its text. Thus, the worthof the AV is not due to 17th century English, but to its faithful translation of the original.
Its style is that of the Hebrew and of the New Testament Greek (again, see Hills, The
King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 218).

79

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

Reformation.1 The impact of the written Word was devastating to theteachings and traditions of the Roman Church. The 16th century
Reformers placed their faith in the precious truths contained in these
Living Words and the battle cry "Sola Scriptura" (Scriptures alone)became, as it were, their creed and rallying point upon which they rested
for final authority.
God had breathed these Scriptures. Now each man could read them, andaccount to God for himself without the dogma and rituals of Rome. In
matters of conduct and faith the Word of God was the final court ofappeal – not the priest or Pope. Indeed, as McClure rightly reminds us:2
"The printing of the English bible has proved to be by far themightest barrier ever reared to repel the advance of Popery, andto damage all the resouraces of the Papacy".

This aggressive, vigorous move by the Protestants placed Roman
Catholicism on the defensive resulting in its having to rethink many
issues and regroup.3 It was forced to define itself at the Council of Trent
in 1546 A.D.
Eventually, as the Greek manuscripts came under close scrutiny by its
Catholic opponents, it became clear that they differed somewhat in text
and that variant readings existed. This gave the Roman Church theimpetus it needed to launch a counter offensive to recapture the minds
and allegiance of its own as well as those who had departed – "there arevariants in your Sola Scriptura – therefore return to Sola Pope".
Placed on the defensive by this assault, the 17th century Protestantchurch was forced into defining itself. This resulted in the doctrine ofProvidential Preservation of the text based upon God's many promises topreserve His Word. That which emerged from this point-counterpoint
scenario was a clarification delineating the antithesis between the two
positions.
The defining process forced both sides to their logicalconclusions.

1

Theodore P. Letis, The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate,(Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1987), pp. 145–190. I am
indebted to Dr. Letis' fine research for the material under this subtitle.

2

McClure, The Translators Revived, op. cit., p. 71.

3

Letis, The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate, op cit., p. 147 ff.

80

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

Initially, all of the various Protestant Confessional declarations (such as
the Westminster, the Philadelphia etc.) containing statements concerning
the preservation of Scripture were written in response to text criticalproblems and challenges.1 These creeds descriptively appealed to theconsensus of history for determining the boundaries of the texts of
Scripture.
Two examples are the Helveticus Consensus and thePhiladelphia Confession, as follows:
THE HELVETICUS CONSENSUS (1675 A.D.)"God, the supreme Judge, not only took care to have his word,
which is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that
believeth, committed to writing by Moses, the prophets, and theapostles, but has also watched and cherished it with paternalcare ever since it was written up to the present time, so that it
could not be corrupted by craft of Satan or fraud of man".

THE PHILADELPHIA CONFESSION (Baptist – 1742 A.D.)"The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in
Greek, being immediately inspired by God, and by his singularcare and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore
authentical; so in all controversies of religion, the Church isfinally to appeal unto them" (taken from the 1646 Westminster
Confession, I, 8 – author's emphasis)

The texts these confessions had in view as "authentical" were theMasoretic Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus New
Testament.
It is important that the Christian understand that the previously
mentioned struggle continues behind the scenes in textual criticism
today. At the same time we must keep in mind that the battle over final
authority began with Lucifer's rebellion (Isaiah 14, Ezek. 28) followed byhis attack on God's Word in the Garden of Eden.
Yet one may inquire, "just what is the nature of this providence, and how
did it actually operate in manuscript transmission?" Some of the more
important and vital canons included in the "doctrine of preservation" are:2
1

Letis, The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate, op cit., p. 173 ff.

2John Owen, "Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture",
The Works of John Owen, Vol. XVI, ed. by William H. Goold, (Edinburgh, Scotland: The
Banner of Truth, 1968; rpt. of 1850–53 ed.), pp. 356–358.

81

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4(a) As God promised many times to preserve His Words, by faith inGod's Character we trust that He has kept His word.
(b) As God used the priesthood to preserve His Word in the Old
Testament, He has done likewise in New Testament times throughthe priesthood of born again believers.
(c) By multiplying copies to such a large number it would be impossible
for anyone to corrupt them all, willfully or by negligence.
(d) The familiarity with Scripture by people from all walks of life
assured that any alterations in wording would have been detected.
(e) Students (especially of Hebrew) were conscious of every letter of thetexts.
(f) Unanimity exists of Old Testament readings in the Mishna, Gemara
and the Talmud with the Masoretic text.
(g) Jesus accused the Jews of His day of many sins, but not once did He
charge them with corrupting their copies – rather, He attested totheir purity (Mat.5:17–19).
(h) The checks and balances that the Jews and Christians afforded eachother would prevent corruptions.

Basically, God's method of preservation may be summed up in that there
are many common readings which must and should be accepted as correct
because they exist in hundreds and even in several thousand copies. Thisoccurrence of common readings is found because God has providentiallyintervened in the scribal copying of Scripture, unlike the copying of nonBiblical literature.
(3) ANCIENT GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

It is true that several thousand mss have been discovered since 1611.
This is the major factor that has been used to justify to the church atlarge the need for a major revision of the King James. It seems logicalthat if a vast amount of data not available to the King James translators
has been brought to life – these new materials must be considered. This
especially seems reasonable as some of these mss were dated between
350–380 A.D. whereas Erasmus' few mss were from the 10th to 15th
centuries. Admittedly this rhetoric seems very compelling. However, ofthe several thousand manuscripts discovered since 1611, the great
majority (90–95%) agree with the Greek text of those few mss that
Erasmus used. Nevertheless, the new translations are rife with footnotes
informing the reader that "the oldest, the best manuscripts read such and82

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4such" as opposed to the King James. But is it not devastating to realizethat what has been kept from the church at large is the fact that the vast
majority (c.90–95%) of these more recent finds read the same as theTraditional Text which underlies the Reformers Bibles and the KingJames translation?
The Alexandrian manuscript (Codex "A") arrived in London in 1627.
Consequently, we often hear how unfortunate that was for the KingJames translators as it arrived sixteen years too late for their use.1 Being
untrue, this serves as an example of the unreliable manner in which mostof the history concerning the Authorized Version is reported. In the firstplace, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph2 were well known not only totranslators of the King James but to Erasmus. The Old Testament
portion of Vaticanus was printed in 1587 so the King James translatorsin 1604 knew all about Vaticanus insofar as the Old Testament wasconcerned.
Thus the men working on the 1611 publication of the King James Bible
knew the variant readings in Vaticanus B and since they knew about B,
they already knew about Sinaiticus and its variant readings even though
the first portion of it was not discovered until 1844 (the remainder in1859) as the two of them read so similarly. In fact, the translators of1611 had available all the variant readings of those vaunted manuscripts– and they rejected them! They also knew the readings of the codices ofAlexandrinus A, B, C and D (the "old uncials"), where they differed fromthe Received Text and they denounced them all. How can this be so? The
readings of those much boasted manuscripts recently made available are
essentially the same as Jerome's Latin Vulgate3 which finds its
foundation in the works of Origen. The Reformers knew all about thevariant readings of the Vulgate and they rejected them which is the samething as rejecting Origen. In rejecting Origen, they rejected Codex
Vaticanus as it was copied from his work. Thus, the Reformers had all
the material necessary for the task at their disposal.4
1

Benjamin C. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, (Washington, DC: n.p., 1930),
pp. 78–83.

2

A 4th century uncial MSS closely akin to Vaticanus (see p. 107).

3

Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, op. cit., pp. 81–83; completed around A.D.
405, Jerome's Vulgate contains a revision of the Latin New Testament.

4

Ibid., pp. 83–85; also Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., pp. 198–199.

83

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

As to the oft heard claim that since much of the newly discoveredmaterial was older than that used by Erasmus and subsequently the
Reformers, they were more reliable, the reader is reminded that themighty Apostle Paul testified to the corruption of the Word in his day.
Hence "oldest" is not necessarily the best. This point will be morethoroughly dealt with later in our exposé (pp. 155 ff.).
Furthermore, Erasmus was in regular correspondence with Professor
Paulus Bombasius, the Papal librarian, who sent him any variant
readings which he desired.1 In fact, in 1533, a correspondent of Erasmus(a Catholic priest named Juan Sepulveda) sent Erasmus 365 selected
readings from Vaticanus B as proof of its superiority to the Textus
Receptus.2 He offered to make the entire document available to Erasmus
for use in his latest edition of the TR. However, Erasmus rejected thereadings of the Vatican manuscript because he considered from themassive evidence of his day that the Textus Receptus data was correct.
Thus Erasmus knew about Vaticanus nearly one hundred years before
the King James Bible ever saw the light of day!
(4) WINDS OF DOCTRINE

A fourth reason Christendom is drawn to the new translations is that ofits having "itching ears". Sadly, man does not want to believe the Bible –he wants a "bible" that he can believe – and he will keep searching until
he finds one. The Spirit of God has warned:
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For
men shall be lovers of their own selves ... 5 Having a form of godliness,but denying the power thereof 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to
the knowledge of the truth. 8 so do these also resist the truth: men of
corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. ... 13 But evil men andseducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived (IITim. 3). ... For the time will come when they will not endure sounddoctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselvesteachers, having itching ears; ... (II Tim. 4:3).
1

Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament
with Remarks on Its Revision upon Critical Principal Together with a Collation of Critical
Texts, (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1854), p. 22.

2

Marvin R. Vincent, A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, (New York:MacMillian, 1899), p. 53; F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the
New Testament, 4th ed., ed. Edward Miller, 2 Vols., (London: George Bell and Sons,
1894), Vol. I, p. 109.

84

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

Dr. Letis1 reminds us that Bible publishers are always advertising that
the Reformers wished to put the Bible in the "language of the people" ...
in a "tongue they could readily understand". However, the Reformers did
not mean that the Bible should be in "conversational dialect" or in thelanguage of the street; rather they meant that the Bible should beavailable in the spoken languages of the European nations and not
merely in the Liturgical Latin of the Roman Catholic Church.
The King James translators make this very clear in their dedicatory toKing James, where they intended for "God's holy Truth to be yet more
and more known unto the people", whom the Roman Catholic Church
desired "still to keep in ignorance and darkness". These men2 desired theBible be accessible in German for the Germans, in French for the French,
in Dutch for the Dutch etc. – not just restricted to Latin, as it was nolonger "the language of the people". Those with vested interest inpromoting "plainer and more relevant" (and more fleeting) translations
always present this out of context to justify the latest, easier-to-read (andto forget) translation.
Relevant to the duties, techniques, and responsibilities of the translator,
the following excerpts extracted from an article by Dr. F.R. Steele,
himself trained by "one of America's outstanding scholars in the field of
Assyriology" and an experienced translator of Babylonian and Sumerian
documents, are instructive sober truths worthy of reflection:"A translation should convey as much of the original text in as
few words as possible, yet preserve the original atmosphere andemphasis.
The translator should strive for the nearest
approximation in words, concepts, and cadence. He should
scrupulously avoid adding words or ideas not demanded by the
text. His job is not to expand or to explain, but to translate and1Letis, The Majority Text: Essays & Reviews in the Continuing Debate, op. cit., pp. 76–77.

2

McClure, The Translators Revived, op. cit., pp. 63–64. Writing in 1858 regarding thecapability of the 1611 translators, McClure notes that the work was undertaken at a mostauspicious period of history. Not only had the English language ripened to its full glory,
the study of Greek, Oriental tongues, and of rabbinical lore had crested to a greater
extent in England than ever before or since. By the good Providence of God, the study inthese disciplines has never been so highly cultivated among English speaking scholars as
it was in that day. These studies had captured the imagination of that generation's
young schoolmen much as that of the computer among today's youth. As a result, theirlevel of acumen was such that, despite the proud boasting in this day, all the colleges ofGreat Britain and America combined could not bring together "the same number of
divines equally qualified by learning and piety" for such an undertaking.

85

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

preserve the spirit and force of the original – even, if need be, atthe expense of modern colloquialisms – so long as the resultant
translation is intelligible. ... there is a vast difference between
translating a Sanskrit poem and the Bible into English. In theformer case we are dealing primarily with ideas, cast in an alienmold, which may best be conveyed in English by a rather freetranslation. In the latter case we are dealing with a document
whose language and vocabulary were specially chosen by theHoly Spirit for the communication of particular truths. No
translator – least of all an evangelical Christian who holds tothe inspiration of the Scriptures – dare ignore that fact. Not
just ideas, but words are important; so also is the emphasis
indicated by word order in the sentence.
"... when translating the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek text into
English, we are not faced with serious problems of cultural
extremes. The physical and social background of the ancient
Near East is much closer to our general European society andeconomy than to either a tropical culture of Central Africa or thearctic culture of the Esquimaux (i.e., Eskimo, author). ... By andlarge, the pastoral of urban society of Bible times can betransferred directly and in its own terms into intelligible
English. Moreover, the past four centuries of acquaintance with
the Bible have introduced into our common speech many words
and ideas originating in the society of Bible lands (such as'crucifixion,' animal sacrifices, and so on) which though initiallystrange to the European scene, are now quite familiar. This
makes the task of translating the Bible into English simpler
than into the language of a people with an opposite or primitive
culture. It is therefore easier to achieve a nearly word for wordtransfer which the nature of the inspired text deserves".
(author's italics)

For many of us who have been contrarily "informed" over the years, Dr.
Steele's words1 take on a near "too good to be true" character. They
capture our attention and fire the soul. He continues with the following

1

Francis R. Steele, Translation or Paraphrase, (St. Louis, MO: Bible Memory Association
International, 1960), pp. 2–4. Among the various positions in which Dr. Steele has
functioned are those of Assistant Professor of Assyriology at the University off
Pennsylvania from 1947–53 and Assistant Curator of the Babylonian Section of the
University Museum. Twice he was annual professor of the Baghdad School of American
Schools of Oriental Research and for many years since he has served as the Home
Secretary of the North Africa Mission. This article was first carried in the September 26,
1960 issue of the magazine Christianity Today.

86The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

which depicts one of the outstanding features rendered by the KingJames translators but lacking in the modern versions:1"Anyone familiar with word studies in the original languages
can testify to the amazing consistency of employment ofparticular terms throughout the Bible. ... men violate a basic
principle of translation when they choose to substitute forindividual words or short phrases long 'homiletic' passages ofprivate interpretation. ... Frequently the full weight of meaning
conveyed by repetition of the same Greek root word is lost intranslation, since different English words are used where one
word consistently used could have preserved the original force
intact".

To illustrate this point, Professor Steele gives an example fromII Corinthians 2:16 – 3:6 in which over this seven verse span four Greek
words are encountered which are all similar forms and are derived fromone root of the same word (hikanos, ίκανος). The King James Bible
rendered the English of these four as "sufficient", "sufficient","sufficiency", and "sufficient" thereby allowing the reader to pick up on
the similarity between their relationship as well as the continuity ofthought in the original language.
Other translations, however, do not exhibit this constancy. Instead, theychoose several different words (usually adding others for which there isabsolutely no textual evidence) and thus lose both the force andconnection which the repetition would have preserved. The result is often
misleading to one who "seeks the words of the Author". Dr. Steele
continues:2"... it is impossible to make a perfect transfer from one language
to another ... the translator must make choice of those words inthe second language which he thinks best convey the thought ofthe original. But frequently the translator appears to forgetthat the original words were chosen purposefully, and ... cast thesentences into new molds which convey the idea in asignificantly different spirit or emphasis. He thus unnecessarilyrobs the text of at least some of its original import. This practice
may be justified in some fields of literature, but it isinadmissible when one is dealing with the inspired Word of God.
1

Steele, Translation or Paraphrase, op. cit., p. 6.

2

Ibid, p 7.

87

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

Dr. Steele adds:1"Certainly many words and even passages in ... the Bible will
benefit from a more extended treatment. But such treatment
belongs in a commentary, not in a translation".

To these last two observations by Dr. Steele, this author adds aresounding "amen". The final citation is given to provide – from one who
is eminently qualified to so warn – a grave caution to us all.2"Moreover, it is doubtful if all the new translations provide thecorrectives they profess.
Not infrequently they simply
substitute their own confusion for that which they claim to havedispelled. This is especially true in their claim to the title'Translation'. Few recent works have any right whateverto that title". (author's emphasis)

How often we hear from the pulpit or from the Sunday School teacher, "I
like the way the xxxxxxx translation says it". But who cares what man
prefers. We do not gather together to hear the personal opinions andwhims of men. The only question is – What saith the Lord? What saith
the Holy Scriptures?
The new Bible translations appeal, not because they are faithful to theoriginal text, but because they have placed the ability to communicate
over and above fidelity to the actual Words of God. The obvious reason
for this being foisted upon the public is ...
(5) GREED FOR MONEY

The majority of modern Bible publishers (not to be confused with Bible
Societies) are neither religious organizations nor missionary societies
deserving our unqualified trust.3 Operating in the cold hard world of
business, they care not whether their product is a faithful rendering of
the true text. Their interest lies along the lines of profit. They are notafter the souls of men unto salvation or edification; rather it is theirpurchasing power which attracts these companies.
1

Steele, Translation or Paraphrase, op. cit., p. 7–8.

2

Ibid., p. 4.

3

Tindale's Triumph, John Rogers' Monument, The New Testament of the Matthew's Bible
1537 A.D., John Wesley Sawyer, ed., (Milford, OH: John the Baptist Printing Ministry,1989), p. iv; from the forward written by Dr. Theodore P. Letis.

88

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

Tragically, the same is true concerning most owners of "Christian" bookstores who sell not only any translation but paperbacks andcommentaries espousing nearly every wind of doctrine. The reason thiscontinues year after year at a more maddening pace takes us back toreason number four – itching ears for winds of doctrine (II Tim.4:3–4;
Eph.4:14). The circle is ever widening and vicious.

89

The "Textus Receptus"

chapter 4

For ever, O LORD,
thy word is settled in heaven.
Psalm 119:89

90

V. THE GREEK TEXT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT
THE MEN WHO CONTROLLED THE 1881 REVISION
Let us return to the 1881 Revision Committee and examine the lives (andthe text which they produced) of two of its leading members – Messrs
Westcott and Hort. These two men had been working in secret prior to
the revision for over twenty years putting together a theretofore
unpublished Greek text of the New Testament which was based almost
exclusively upon one manuscript, Vaticanus B. Their New Testament
altered the 140,521 word text of the Textus Receptus at 5,604 places
involving 9,970 Greek words.1 Representing 7 percent of the total word
count, these 9,970 included Greek words that were either added,
subtracted, or changed.
When the Committee initiated its revision process in 1870, W-H
succeeded in getting it to agree to a secrecy pledge concerning the actual
product of the revision. On this committee was Vance Smith, a Unitarianscholar who did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ and had so statedin writing. At the initial meeting, Westcott and Hort insisted that Smithbe included in the inaugural communion service. This speaks volumes as
to the lack of commitment to our Lord that W & H actually held forth.
In 185l, Mr. Hort wrote:2"I had no idea until the last few weeks of the importance of texts
having read so little Greek Testament and dragged on with thevillainous Textus Receptus. Think of that vile Textus Receptus
leaning entirely on late manuscripts".

Thus at only age twenty-three and having admitted he had almost no
preparatory background, Hort concluded that the Textus Receptus was"vile" and "villainous". At that time he dedicated his life to its overthrow,intending to supplant it with another text. The text he eventuallyreplaced the TR with was Codex Vaticanus B.
At the time of this decision, young Hort had been schooled in ClassicalGreek and was unaware that the New Testament had not been written in
1

Waite, Defending the King James Bible, op. cit., pp. 41–42. Dr. Jack Moorman, former
professor at a Bible College in S. Africa & now pastor in London, personally counted
every word in the TR, and Dr. Waite numerated the 5,604 changes made in it by W-H.

2

A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 211.

91

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5that form of the Greek language. Since the Greek of the New Testament
as recorded in the Textus Receptus did not rigidly follow the syntax of the
Greek of the classics, Hort deemed it as an inferior quality of Greek.1
This misconception was responsible for his having rashly termed the TR
as "vile" and "villainous". Indeed, the Egyptian papyri which proved that
the N.T. had been written in Koine (common) Greek rather than ClassicalGreek had not yet been discovered.
Vaticanus B had been "discovered" in 1481 on the library shelf of the
Vatican.
To understand Vaticanus B, we have to go back toapproximately 200 A.D. to an early so-called "Father" of the church
named Origen. If the student researches encyclopedias and otherreference materials, he will find Origen, Westcott, and Hort spoken of as
having been great men of God – men of faith. They will state how much
the Church is indebted to them, that Origen was the first scientifictextual exegete of the Scriptures, etc. However, such is not what one
finds upon closer examination of the facts.

ORIGEN – THE FOUNTAINHEAD OF THE PROBLEM
Origen Adamantius compiled an Old Testament called the Hexapla (c.245
A.D.). It was, in effect, a parallel Bible which had six columns. The firstcolumn was the Hebrew Old Testament. Three other columns portrayed
Greek translations by men who were Ebionites. They believed in the
ethical teachings of Jesus but did not believe in Paul's doctrines of grace.
Indeed, they called Paul an apostate and wholly rejected all his epistles.2
They did not believe Jesus was Deity – that He was God with a capital"G", and taught that Joseph was the father of Jesus. Several of theEbionites whose translations were included in these columns later
apostatized, returning to Judaism.
One of them (Aquila of Sinope, 80–135 A.D.) was excommunicated fromthe Christian community for steadfastly refusing to give up astrology andfor practicing necromancy.3 During the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117–138),
1

Jay P. Green, Sr. (ed.), Unholy Hands on the Bible, Vol. II, (Lafayette, IN: Sovereign
Grace Trust Fund Pub., 1992), p. 454.

2

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2 Vols., Loeb Classical Library, (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard UP, 1980), Vol. 1, Bk III, ch. 27.

3

Foy E. Wallace, A Review of the New Versions, (Ft. Worth, TX: Noble Patterson Pub.,1973), Addenda, section 3, p. 21. Wallace reprints Professor R.C. Foster's "The Battle of
the Versions" in his Addenda, 3rd & 4th sections, pp. 13–36.

92

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5

he supervised the building of a pagan temple to Jupiter on the site of the
Temple of Solomon and placed a statue of the Emperor where the Holy ofHolies had been.1 Aquila produced a new translation of the Old
Testament into Greek wherein he deliberately translated many sectionsof Scripture concerning the Messiah in such a way as to make it
impossible to apply these passages to the Lord Jesus Christ.2 Heconjectured that the Greek word "parthenos" of Matthew 1:23 was not thevirgin Mary but represented a corruption in the original text. According
to Aquila, the correct understanding was that Jesus was the bastard sonof Mary and a blond Roman soldier of German extraction named"Pantheras" (Eng. = panther).3 Origen considered the works of these
Ebionites to be "inspired" and thus included them in his "Bible".
The fifth column (written in classical Greek) supposedly is Origen's
revision of an older pre A.D. Greek Old Testament translation. Today,
this 5th column is referred to by text critics (though they are loathe toadmit this) as the "LXX" or the "Septuagint".4
Origen also worked with the New Testament. Whereas he mainlytranslated the Old, he edited the New. Origen traveled extensively andeverywhere he found a Greek New Testament, it was altered to fit his
doctrine. He, of course, felt that he was merely "correcting" themanuscripts. However, men of God do not change original manuscript
readings. If one does not agree with the text of a manuscript, the place
for change is at translation; but to alter the original document – never!
Origen had a wealthy patron (Ambrosius) who supplied over sevenstenographers, as many copyists, and girls skilled in calligraphy toaccompany and assist him as he systematically altered Scripture.5
Origen was the third head master of a school in Alexandria, Egypt, which
had been founded in 180 A.D. by the Greek philosopher Pantaenus.
1

Wallace, A Review of the New Versions, op. cit., pp. 22–23.

2

Ibid., pp. 16 & 18. Irenaeus assailed Aquila as a wicked perverter of Scripture, AnteNicene Fathers, Vol. I, Roberts and Donaldson, eds., (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub.
Co., 1867; rpt 1978), "Against Heresies", Bk. III, ch. XXI, p. 451.

3

Ibid., Addenda, section 3, p. 17.

4

Jones, The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis, op. cit., p. 19.

5

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, op. cit., Bk. VI, ch. 23, Elgin S. Moyer, Who Was Who in
Church History, (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1962), p. 315; John Reumann, The Romanceof Bible Scripts and Scholars, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1965), pp. 98–103.

93

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5

Pantaenus was succeeded in 202 A.D. by Clement of Alexandria (not to be
confused with Clement of Rome) who taught that Plato's work was also
inspired in the same sense as Scripture. Their writings indicate they
were lost, albeit "religious", Greek philosophers. Neither professed a newbirth apart from water baptism; indeed, it was on the basis of theirhaving been so baptized that they declared themselves "Christian".
However, the New Testament repeatedly declares that this is not how one
becomes a Christian as water neither saves nor redeems. Rather, theBible teaches that in order to be a Savior one must be deity, live a sinless
life, die on a cross and come back to life on the third day. As Mary, theRoman Catholic church, the Baptist church, Calvin, Wesley, or any
present day churchmen etc. did not die on the cross and come back to lifeon the third day, they cannot be the savior of men's souls. Since water
did not die on the cross and come back to life on the third day, it also
cannot save the soul.

ORIGEN'S BELIEFS
The following is a composite gleaned from many sources1 depicting thebeliefs of Origen. Let us examine them to see if he was in fact a "great
early Father of the Church" as we are often told.
This Greek philosopher had been taught by the founder of Neo-Platonism(Ammonius Saccas 170–243 A.D.).
Neo-Platonism is a strange
combination of Aristotelian logic and Oriental cult teachings. It conceives
the world as being an emanation from "the one" – the impersonal one (notthe personal "Abba" [Daddy or even the more intimate "Dada"] of the
Bible) with whom the soul is capable of being reunited while in some sortof trance or ecstasy.
As a follower of that philosophy, Origen attempted to amalgamate its
views to Christianity. The problem with Origen, as with many who
profess Christianity today, was that he tried to take "the best" of theworld system (that which he had learned in school – his old philosophic
views etc.) and incorporate them into Christianity; but they do not mix.
It will be noted that many of Origen's beliefs coincide with Roman
1

Albert Henry Newman, A Manual of Church History, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press,
1902), Vol. I, pp. 284–287; Herbert Musurillo, The Fathers of the Primitive Church (NewYork: Mentor-Omega Pub., 1966), pp. 31, 38, 195, 198, 202–203; Encyclopedia Britannica,
Vol. 16, (1936–esp. point 4, later editions omit this fact), pp. 900–902, to name but a few.
Also see: Ante-Nicene Fathers, op. cit., Vol. IV, pp. 292, 327, 337, 341 etc.

94

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5

Catholic and Jehovah's Witness doctrine, both of which are "Christian"cults. Origen believed:1.

in soul sleep (that the soul "sleeps" in the grave until the resurrection).
However, the Bible teaches that to be absent from the body is to bepresent with the Lord (II Cor.5:8);

2.

in baptismal regeneration (belief that one is saved by water baptism).
Although Satan was the originator, Origen is the first man we can find
who was a strong proponent of this doctrine;3.

in universal salvation, i.e., the ultimate reconciliation of all things
including Satan and the demons;

4.

that the Father was God with a capital "G" and Jesus was God with alittle "g" – that Jesus was only a created being. Thus, Origen was not
Christian in the most basic of all doctrine, namely the person of the Lord
Jesus the Christ;

5.

to become sinless, one had to go to purgatory . This doctrine is nowhere
to be found in Scripture;6.

in transubstantiation (that at communion the bread and wine actuallyturn to the body and blood of Christ); and7.

in a form of reincarnation and karma where the soul preexisted on otherworlds prior to this current earth and brought with it the blessings orcurses earned from the previous life. (Jesus' resurrection corrects thereincarnation error as He came back to life as the same Jesus. Hebrews
9:27 says "And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the
judgment". Thus the Bible teaches there is no reincarnation.);8.

or intimated that non baptized infants were hell bound;9.

and would not concede that any intelligent person could believe that the2
temptations of Jesus as recorded in the Scriptures actually happened;

1

1

Transmigration means that one comes back to life as something else, i.e., a frog, or someother animal or even a tree. Reincarnation means that you come back to life as someone
else – another human. Someone may reply "Well, reincarnation should be the case sothat we can have a second chance". Such is heresy. Never should God give a "second
chance". How terrible and wicked it would be of God to give only two opportunities to be
saved! God has given every man during his lifetime literally hundreds and thousands ofopportune moments to have his soul saved from the terrible consequences of sin, by
simply receiving Jesus as his substitute – as his Lord and Savior.

2

Origen went on to even correct Jesus, for in Matthew 13:38 in the parable of the sower
Jesus says that the field is the world (Mat.13:34). Origen said "the field was Jesus".
Later, he changed his mind, deciding that the field was the Scriptures.

95

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5

10. the Scriptures were not literal (Origen was the "father of allegories");
11. neither in an actual "Adam" nor the fall of man and that Genesis 1–3 was
not literal or historical;
12. the correct interpretation of Matthew 19 was that a man of God should1
be castrated and thereby proceeded to emasculate himself;
13. and taught eternal life was not a gift, rather that one must seize hold on
and retain it (but Eph.2:8 says "For by grace are ye saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God".);14. that "Christ enters no man until he grasps mentally the doctrine of theconsummation of the ages" (that would eliminate about 99% at mosttypical Christian gatherings);
15. the redeemed would not experience a physical resurrection (however
I Corinthians 15 teaches a physical resurrection, as do many other
Scriptures). Moreover, around 200 A.D. Alexandrian "Christians" taughtthat Mary was the second person of the Trinity ("Quarterly Journal ofProphecy" [July, 1852], p. 329).

Origen is often depicted as a "man of God", especially because he "died forhis beliefs". That is certainly a commendable character trait, but Hitler,
Mussolini, and Karl Marx also died for their beliefs. That does not mean
they were Christians. Many have believed in a cause enough to give theirlives for it, but it does not follow that they were Christian. Origen's
beliefs clearly reveal him as cultic – he was a religious Greek philosopher
with Gnostic tendencies and not truly a born again son of God.
1

In so doing, Origen mutilated that which supposedly was the temple of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was not so teaching. When Jesus gave an example about plucking out an eye or
cutting off a hand rather than to enter hell – He was teaching how dreadful sin was, howterrible hell was and with how radically sin had to be dealt. Jesus knew that no man in
his right mind would really pluck out his eye or cut off his hand. Jesus was speaking tothat person who would rationalize and say "Oh, I didn't want to do it. I did not want togaze at her with an adulterous eye but my eye just did so. I didn't want to seize themoney but my hand simply took it. I am basically a fine person. The problem is that myhand (or eye, he, she or even the devil) made me do it. Anybody, everybody but it is not
my fault!" Jesus was saying in effect – Oh, if that is the case, simply cut off your hand or
pluck out your eye.
Jesus desired to jar mankind out of its complacent self-satisfied lifestyle into an honest
appraisal of the situation to the intent that they might repent. Again, He knew thatthey would not really pluck out their eyes nor did He mean for them to do so. He wasteaching the horror and reality of hell. In Matthew 12 and 15 and in Jeremiah 17:9,
Jesus taught that sin was a matter of the heart. One can pluck out an eye or cut off ahand but still think about and long to sin (compare the Baalite priest's cutting their flesh
so as to gain their god's attention in I Ki. 18:28 – self-mutilation is purely pagan).

96

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5

Before closing this section it must be noted that the frame of reference
taken in selecting the correct text from among the variant readings
during the 1870-1881 revision was said to be that of a "neutral" approach.
This meant that the problem was to be approached with the mind set thatsaid readings should not be chosen which "reflect a doctrinal bias" – that
Scripture displaying a doctrinal bias should be viewed suspiciously.1
Thus if the variant being examined read to the effect that Jesus Christ is
God come in the flesh, that should be viewed as highly suspicious for it isvery doctrinal. The problem with such a priori is that the Bible is a bookof doctrine (II Tim.3:17).
Most modern scholars who work on Bible revision also like to think ofthemselves as being "neutral" maintaining that they translated or chose areading having come to the problem with a "neutral" approach. But do
we really believe that God would take a "neutral" point of view toward
His Son and upon His finished work of redemption? When we read theletters of Paul and John, do we conclude that they were neutral? The
standpoint that Jesus is Jehovah God – the Creator – come in the flesh is
not a neutral position. Neither Peter nor Luke took a neutral position!
Indeed, there is no such thing as a neutral position concerning the deityof Christ Jesus.
Westcott and Hort championed the so-called "neutral" method and it has
been with us ever since. The question that must be faced is – would aman who fits the spiritual description of Origen as outlined on the two
previous pages (whose work W&H used) ever produce a neutral text?
Some of these textual critics are sincere but deceived. However, most are
wolves in sheep's clothing. Origen was the first wolf in this cult and thefifth column of his Hexapla along with his edited N.T. are the fruits ofthat wolf cult. This concludes the first installment in our exposé of thisgreat horror.

ENTER CONSTANTINE (288–337 A.D.)
The second important event in the history of the Text began when
Constantine became Emperor.
Although he professed to embrace
Christianity, it is extremely doubtful that he ever converted. The facts
concerning his "conversion" have been distorted in order to help
perpetuate the adoration of the cross image in the church.
1

From J.J. Griesbach: "When there are many variant readings in one place, that reading
which more than the others manifestly favors the dogmas of the orthodox is deservedly
regarded as suspicious". Novum Testamentum Graece (Halle: 1796), p. 62.

97

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5Constantine was going into a major battle amid division among his ranks.
Many of his troops were Christians and many more were not. He knew
he was out-numbered and stood to lose the battle. On the day before theBattle of Milvian Bridge (located under the walls of Rome), Constantine
prayed to the sun-god and there appeared a cross – so we are told – overthe setting sun with the inscription: "In hoc signo vinces" ("in this signconquer"). Research into the matter indicates that the cross which
Constantine is supposed to have seen resembled a capital "T" with a little
loop at the top. In Egypt it was known as an ankh. Such was never a
Christian symbol.
It has always been a religious symbol of theBabylonian cult, a pagan sect which spread all over the world and is
known in different cultures under many different names. Everywhere
the cultic symbols were the same – the main object of worship was that of
an image of a mother holding an infant.

THE "MYSTERIES" AND THEIR BEGINNING

1

The origin of this image may be traced back to Babylon at the time of theTower of Babel. The Tower was built under the direction of the founderof the world's first kingdom, Nimrod-bar-Cush, the son of Cush ("theblack one") and grandson of Ham ("the dark or the sunburned one").
Secular records state that Nimrod (Orion, or Kronos [a corona or crown]"the horned one") married the infamous Semiramis I. She is reputed tohave been the foundress of the Babylonian "Mysteries" and the first highpriestess of idolatry. Tradition also ascribes the invention of the use of
the cross as an instrument of death to this same woman.
Apparently when Nimrod (a black) died, Semiramis became pregnant outof wedlock. The child, like its father, was white. Semiramis acting tosave the moment declared that Nimrod's spirit had become one with thesun – incarnated with the sun – and that he had come to her in the night
so that she had miraculously conceived a god-son. As the first mortal tobe so deified, Nimrod thus became the actual "father of the gods".
Semiramis presented the infant to the people and hailed him as thepromised "seed of the woman" – the deliverer. Thus was introduced the"mystery" of the mother and the child, a form of idolatry that is older
than any other known to man. The rites were secret. Only the initiatedwere permitted to know its mysteries, and it – along with all of its
1

Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Bros. Inc., 1916). Hislop's
is the classic text on this subject, and much of the material under this heading has beengleaned from him; especially pp. 91–103 and note p. 93.

98

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5"offspring" cults – became known as various "mystery" religions. The
whole system of the secret Mysteries of Babylon was intended to glorify adead man while Semiramis gained glory from her dead husband's"deification". The people did not want to retain God in their knowledge,
but preferred some visible object of worship. Wherever the Negro aspectof Nimrod was found to be an obstacle to his worship, a simple solution
was found. As the Chaldean's believed in reincarnation and thetransmigration of souls, it was taught that Nimrod had reappeared in the
person of his fair complected, supernaturally conceived son (Hislop, p. 69)– thus the father and son were one. It was Satan's attempt to delude
mankind with a counterfeit imitation that was so much like the truth of
God that man would not know the true Seed of the woman when He camein the fullness of time.
Eventually this mystery religion spread from Babylon to all thesurrounding nations. Everywhere the symbols were the same. The
image of "the queen of heaven" (Semiramis – Jer.44:19, 25; compare
Isa.47:5 where she is referred to as "the" or "our lady" – notre dame in
French) with the babe in her arms was seen everywhere. It became themystery religion of the seafaring Phoenicians and they carried it to theends of the earth. It was known as Baal (Nimrod – the sun-god) worshipin Phoenicia where the mother was known as Astoreth and the child as
Tammuz (Tammuz Adonis).
In Egypt the cult was known as that of Osiris, Isis and Horus. The
mother and child were worshipped as Aphrodite and Eros in Greece,
Venus and Cupid in Italy (in Rome the child was formerly called Jupiter).
The Chinese called the mother goddess Shingmoo or the "Holy Mother".
She is pictured with child in arms and rays of glory around her head
(Hislop, p. 21). Among the Druids, the "Virgo-Paritura" was worshipped
as the "Mother of God". In India, she was known as Indrani. Elsewherein and near India, the mother and child were known as Devaki andKrishna; in Asia they were Cybele and Deoius.
They were known by many other names in other parts of the world, but
regardless of her name and place – she was the wife of Baal, the virgin
mother (Hebrew = alma mater), the queen of heaven who bore a childalthough she supposedly never conceived. The mother and child werecalled by different names, due to the dividing of the languages at Babel.
With the passing of time, some of the rites and parts of the doctrine andstory varied from place to place and cult to cult, but the essential story
always remained the same.

99

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5Allied with this central mystery were countless lesser mysteries. Amongthem were: the teachings of purgatorial purification after death, salvationby countless sacraments such as sprinkling with holy water, priestly
absolution, the offering of round (sun disks) cakes to the queen of heaven(Jer.7:16–18; 44:15–30), the dedication of virgins to the gods, and weeping
for Tammuz for a period of 40 days prior to the festival of Ishtar (Easter)
to commemorate Ishtar's (another name for Semiramis, also known as
Astarte) having received her son back from the dead. Tammuz was said
to have been ripped to pieces and slain by a wild boar (the traditional
Christmas pig) and afterward brought back to life (Hislop, p. 99). Theegg became a sacred symbol depicting the mystery of his "resurrection".
The evergreen tree became the symbol of his never ending life and birthat the winter solstice, when a boar's head was eaten (ham on New Year'sday) in memory of his conflict. The burning of a Yule log always
accompanied this winter celebration. In the cult teaching, the ankh – adistinctive cross – was the sacred symbol of Tammuz. As it was the first
letter of his name, it signified the life-giving principle (Ezekiel 8 – thewomen weeping for Tammuz). It is an ancient pagan symbol and did not
originate with Christianity as most suppose.
The mystery religion of Babylon, which had begun under Nimrod's
direction until its dispersal at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 10 & 11; Isa. 47),
continued over the centuries to flourish in the "land of Shinar". When thecity of Babylon fell in BC 539, the high-priest fled with a group of
initiates and their sacred vessels and images to Pergamos (Rev.2:12–17).
There, the symbol of the serpent was set up as the emblem of the hidden
wisdom. From there, many of them crossed the sea and settled in the PoeValley of northeast Italy where the Etruscans lived. When Romeconquered the Etruscans, the Etruscans brought their Babylonian cultreligion to Rome where the child was known as Mithras (the mediator).
Thus, when Christianity came to Rome, the whorish cult, the counterfeit,
was waiting to join in an unholy union with it. These mystery cultteachings eventually invaded the Catholic church which is still full of its
traditions, the roots of which lie deep in paganism. Every Romanemperor belonged to this cult. Everyone of means – the upper class – wasan initiate. It was the "country club" to which to belong, much as isFreemasonry in many parts of the world today.1
1

The Lodge drew all of its basic teachings from various "denominations" within thismystery religion. The major writers within Freemasonry freely confess this, but almost
no one reads these works to so learn.

100The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5

BACK TO CONSTANTINE

1

So when Constantine told his troops that he had seen the sign of thecross, the Christians thought he was speaking of the "Christian" cross.
The pagans perceived it to be the symbol of Tammuz or Nimrod. It
united them together for the battle. Actually, there is little reason toconsider this vision as authentic, especially since it has no real historicalbasis. The only authority from whom the story has been gathered byhistorians is Eusebius, who confessedly was prone to edification and was
accused as a "falsifier of history". Another account, supposedly given by
Lactantius – the tutor of Constantine's son Crispus – speaks only of a
dream in which the emperor was directed to stamp on the shields of hissoldiers "the heavenly sign of God" and thus go forth to battle.2 That the
Lord would command a pagan emperor to make a military banner withthe cross emblazoned upon it and to go forth conquering and killing underthat sign is altogether inconsistent with the general teaching of the Bible
and with the spirit of true Christianity. It is more the spirit of the
Crusades, which was not of the Spirit of God.
Further, the Roman Empire of which Constantine was the head had been
described by the prophet Daniel as a "Beast" that was so terrible in theeyes of God that it could not be compared to any on earth (Dan.7:1–8).
Are we to believe that the Lord Jesus would become the leader of thisbeast system or that He would give a sun-worshipping emperor a vision
telling him to kill and go into battle as His representative? We trow not !
Constantine never believed that Jesus was Deity – that He was God witha capital "G". The entire time he professed Christianity he was, asemperor, the high priest or Pontifix Maximus of the mystery cult inRome.3 Moreover, after his supposed conversion, he committed several
murders – including those of his wife and son!4 Constantine died the high1

Ralph Woodrow, Babylon Mystery Religion: Ancient and Modern, (Riverside, CA: Ralph
Woodrow Evangelistic Asso., Inc., 1981), pp. 55–59; much of the data under this heading
has been derived from Woodrow's excellent study.

2

Interestingly, Constantine was not "baptized" until 337 A.D. after he fell sick unto death,some 25 years after his "vision". Some investigators have suspected that he had already
expired prior to the baptism. Regardless, the officiating Bishop was Eusebius ofNicomedia, the champion of the Arian party (Moyer, Who Was Who in Church History, op.
cit., p. 137).

3

Woodrow, Babylon Mystery Religion: Ancient and Modern, op. cit., p. 58.

4

Ibid.

101

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5

priest of the worshipers of the sun and at the same time claimed to be the"pope" of the church of God on this earth! When Constantine dedicatedConstantinople (Istanbul), he used both pagan and Christian rites in the
ceremony. His determination to mix together both paganism andChristianity is also witnessed on the coins which he had made.1 He had across placed on them (especially to please the professing Christians) alongwith representations of Mars or Apollo (Nimrod). At the same time hecontinued to believe in pagan magic formulas for the protection of crops
and the healing of disease.
Why then, if he were not truly a Christian, did he show numerous favors
toward the Christian faith? Constantine was a consummate politician.
He had seen that years of severe and brutal persecutions had not
destroyed the Christian faith. His position was being challenged by arival Emperor (Maxentius) and as he was in dire need for support fromevery section of the populace, he thus turned to the Christians in order tounite his divided empire. This was fairly easy to do for by this time themajority of the church leaders were thinking in terms of numbers andpopularity, rather than in terms of spirituality and truth. They wereready to compromise with the various "mysteries" in order to achieve
those ends. This was especially true at Rome.
By adopting the cross as a symbol on the banners of his army, and having
a transverse letter "X" (a Greek Chi) marked on the shields of hissoldiers, Constantine hoped to establish unity among his troops. The
apostate and/or worldly Christians would think they were fighting for the
cross of Christ; the pagans had already been fighting for years under astandard bearing a mithraic cross of light.2 The ploy worked and thebattle at Milvian Bridge was won on 28 October, 312 A.D.

THE COUNCIL OF NICEA
In the year 325 A.D., the Nicean Council was called to put down andsettle the Arian heresy. Arius believed that Jesus was not God come in
the flesh – that He was only a created being – and not God with a capital"G". To him, Jesus was more than a man but not quite God.
1

Woodrow, Babylon Mystery Religion: Ancient and Modern, op. cit., p. 58.

2

Will Durant, The Story of Civilization. Caesar and Christ, Vol. 3, (New York: Simon andSchuster, 1944), p. 654. The X was also the symbol of the god Ham in Egypt: Alexander
Hislop, The Two Babylons, op. cit., p. 204.

102

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5

Eusebius, a great historian who wrote a history of the early church, wasalso an Arian – a unregenerate religious man and a friend of Arius.
Under great pressure from the orthodox Bishops at the Council,
Constantine and Eusebius "took a more conciliatory view" concerning thedeity of the Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, they would no longer go
all the way to Arianism, but they would not completely deny it either.
But this simply cannot be done with Jesus. One cannot take a"conciliatory point of view" about the deity of Christ. The fundamental
issue in whether one is actually a Christian or not is "Who is Jesus toyou?" If a person does not believe unto the committing of his life that
Jesus is God the creator (Jehovah) come in the flesh, that He died for thesins of the world and was raised from the dead on the third day to makethe final blood atonement for mankind's sins, that person is not a
Christian. That is the Biblical definition of a Christian. It is not
someone who has been merely water baptized, confirmed, or has his nameon the membership roll.
Arius did not relent and was banished. However, two years later
Constantine allowed him to return. Constantine and Eusebius, like
Arius, did not hold to the doctrine of "Consubstantiation" – that Jesus
and God the Father were of one essence. Constantine had become not
only the Emperor of the Roman Empire but, in effect, a Pope. As such, it
was his duty and privilege to appoint all bishops, archbishops, etc.,
within the Church. From the human standpoint, the organized church
had come completely under the authority of the Roman government. Hisson, Constantius II, inherited that power when he became Emperor. Like
his father, Constantius was Arian (his brother Constans was orthodox)
and all the bishops appointed by him were Arian in doctrine. As aconsequence, for the next three hundred years every bishop in the Roman
Catholic Church was Arian.1

CONSTANTINE COMMISSIONS EUSEBIUS TO PREPARE
50 BIBLESIn 331, Constantine instructed Eusebius to prepare fifty copies of the
Bible so that he could place them in the new churches which he planned
to build in Constantinople.2 This Eusebius did. The question is, what did
Eusebius use for his guide in preparing these 50 Bibles for Constantine?
1

E.H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church, (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1931), pp. 21–22.

2

Eusebius, Life of Constantine, iv, 36.

103

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5

Eusebius considered Origen to have been the greatest of men; he claimed
to have collected 800 of Origen's letters and to have used his Hexapla.
Thus, Eusebius – assisted by Pamphilus – selected the fifth column ofOrigen's Hexapla, with alternate readings from the other columns, for the
Old Testament,1 adding the Apocrypha (books not included in the Hebrew
canon such as 1st and 2nd Esdras, Tobit, Judith, The rest of the Book of
Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Bel and the Dragon, 1stand 2nd Maccabees, Baruch, etc.) and completed the work using Origen'sedited New Testament. These were prepared for Constantine on finevellum and backed by the stamp of the Roman government. The vellum(animal skin) was of such high quality that one antelope would be usedjust to make two sheets of finished product. Only the throne would have
had sufficient funds to pay for such an undertaking.

THE INQUISITION
What does this have to do with Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph? The
Roman Catholic Church has tried for years to destroy Protestantism andreturn all Christendom under Rome's Authority. Millions of people were
put to death, not in war, but by various means of torture and murder
during the Inquisition. The Roman church, using the Inquisition, made
Adolph Hitler look like a mere choir boy. Hitler murdered six million
Jews – a most heinous sin and crime – but during the Inquisition fromjust after 1200 to around 1750 A.D. as many as sixty eight million humanbeings were cruelly slain, all in the name of God! A sizable number of theslain were themselves Roman Catholics who had been falsely accused forpolitical and selfish motives. It was a blood bath, a horror story!
Most of the major wars fought in Europe beginning in the middle 1500's
and extending for several centuries were conducted for the purpose ofbringing the Protestants back under the dominion of the Pope. Then, in
1870, when it was decided by a portion of the Church to "update" theBible of the Reformation which had brought about the breaking awayfrom Romanism (that wicked system that had strangled Tyndale andburned his body, that had murdered sixty-eight million people who would
not bow to it, that had slaughtered 10,000 people at one time in the St.
Bartholomew's day massacre) the Great Whore said in effect: "You
Protestants are going to update your Bible? Here, look what we just1

Ira M. Price, The Ancestry of our English Bible, 2nd ed., rev., (New York: Harper andBros., 1949), p. 79.

104

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5

found on the Vatican shelf. Would you like to use Vaticanus B to assist
you toward that end?" Yet the revisers were not even the leastsuspicious. Is not that amazing? When a similar ploy was tried on
Erasmus in 1515, he saw through it. Why should the Vatican suddenly
want to help the Reformers? We shall examine why presently.
What then are Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph? They are two extant(still existing) MSS of the original fifty whose production Eusebius
personally oversaw and supervised for Constantine beginning in 331
A.D.1 B was discovered in 1481 in the Vatican library. Tischendorf, aGerman text critic, discovered Sinaiticus Aleph in a waste basket at amonastery near the foot of Mount Sinai in 1844.2 Aleph and B are
derived from Origen's fifth column of the Hexapla and his New
Testament. Again, Origen was the "Christian" infidel who deliberately
altered Biblical text and, with the aid of fourteen stenographers, changed
it to fit his own beliefs.

JEROME AND THE LATIN VULGATE
There is one more piece of the puzzle to be added. Jerome, the hermit ofBethlehem, was commissioned by Pope Damasus to revise the entire
Latin Bible. Jerome completed the Gospels around A.D. 384. About 386,
he came to Jerusalem under the auspices of the Church at Rome andbegan to update the Old Latin Bible. What did Jerome use as his
standard for this task? Jerome based his Old Testament primarily on the
Hebrew text in Origen's Hexapla and admits to using the other columns(his 5th and those of the Ebionites) to "correct" the text. He relied heavily
upon Origen's edited New Testament to finish the revision. The entire
work was completed c.405. Jerome's Latin Vulgate, although malignedby the Roman church for years, was accepted at the 1546 A.D. Council ofTrent as that cult's official "Bible". It is still being used today.

1

Fuller, Which Bible?, op. cit., p. 163. Both Hort and Tischendorf believed that these were
two extant copies which Eusebius had prepared. A.T. Robertson, among many others,
concurs: Introduction to Textual Criticism, op. cit., p. 80.

2

Unfortunately, the discovery of Aleph impaired Tischendorf's judgment. Afterward, healtered the considered "mature conclusions" given in his 7th N.T. edition no less than
3,572 instances in his 8th, mainly due to the readings in Aleph – to the total scandal ofthe "science" of textual criticism. See, Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., p. 160.

105

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5

PUT IT ALL TOGETHER, PLEASE
Now let us review. What is Jerome's Latin Vulgate? It is a version
derived from Origen's fifth column and his edited New Testament. What
are Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph? They were taken from Origen's
fifth column and his edited New Testament by Eusebius. What was the
Greek text used by Westcott and Hort? It was taken directly from Origen
as 90% is word for word from Vaticanus B and, of the remaining 10%,
about 7% is Sinaiticus Aleph. In other words, Westcott and Hort came to
the 1881 Revision Committee, having worked in secret for over twenty
years on a Greek text which was derived from two (though mainly fromone) of the copies which Eusebius had prepared for Constantine, thesemanuscripts having been produced from Origen's work! The translation
was Origen's sole endeavor, his private interpretation – and we havealready examined his beliefs! Westcott and Hort succeeded in getting thecommittee to accept almost word for word this Greek text, replacing
Erasmus' Greek text of the Reformation.
Thus we see that the text of Westcott and Hort, from which Nestle's text
is derived and all the modern translations have as their foundation, is thesame as the Catholic Vulgate – for Jerome, like Eusebius, relied uponOrigen's work! The point being made is that equals of equals are equal.
Thus, the readings in the new Protestant Bibles are almost the same as
the Roman Bible, and most of the passages that militate against many of
the Roman heresies and errors are either altered or omitted, greatly
facilitating the ecumenical efforts to bring about the return to Rome.
The reader should discern therefore that the Latin Vulgate, Sinaiticus,
Vaticanus, the Hexapla, Nestle's Greek text (or the Aland-Nestle26 or
UBS3), Jerome, Eusebius, Origen, and Westcott-Hort are terms for ideasthat are inseparable.

VATICANUS B AND SINAITICUS ALEPH
What is Vaticanus B? It is a Greek uncial manuscript written on vellum
containing 759 leaves, each being 10½ by 10½ inches. It adds to the
Bible as it includes the Old Testament Apocrypha. Yet God said "don'tadd". It contains the Epistle of Barnabas (part of the Apocalyptic books of
New Testament times) which teaches that water baptism saves the soul,again adding to the Word of God. However, the Word of God has also
been deleted as Vaticanus B does not include Genesis 1:1–46:28, Psalms
106–138, Matthew 16:2–3, Romans 16:24. It also lacks Paul's pastoral

106

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5

epistles (1st and 2nd Timothy, Titus and Philemon). Missing are all of
the Revelation as well as Hebrews 9:15 – 13:25 which teaches that theonce for all sacrifice of Jesus ended the sacraments forever. There is alsoa blank space left at Mark 16:9–20 (see any standard reference such as
ISBE).
Erasmus knew about Vaticanus B and its variant readings in 1515 A.D.
while preparing the New Testament Greek text. Because they read so
differently from the vast majority of mss which he had seen, Erasmus
considered such readings spurious. For example, Vaticanus B leaves out"Mystery Babylon the Great", "the seven heads that are the seven
mountains upon which the harlot (the apostate religious system thatbegan at Babel of which the Roman church is a part) sits", and leaves out"the woman which is that great city which reigns over the kings of theearth" which has seven mountains. All of this is found in Revelation 17.
Sinaiticus Aleph, discovered in 1844, has 346½ leaves (147½ are NT) or
694 pages each measuring 13½ by 15 inches. It is always stated that
Aleph is a "complete" Greek New Testament, but it is not. It adds, forexample, the Shepherd of Hermas and Barnabas to the N.T. It omits
John 5:4, 8:1–11; Mat. 16:2–3; Rom. 16:24; Mark 16:9–20; I John 5:7; Acts
8:37 and about a dozen other verses.
The most significant fact regarding these MSS is that in both Vaticanus
B and Sinaiticus Aleph, John 1:18 reads that Jesus was the only begotten"God" instead of the only begotten "Son". Now, that is the original Arian
heresy!
The most widely used Greek text in Bible colleges andseminaries today is Eberhard Nestle's Greek text. Nestle likewise reads... only begotten "God", which means that God had a little God named
Jesus who is thus a lesser God than the Father. This means that at first
there was big God and He created a little "god".
Thus, Jesus comes out to be a created being, a God with a little "g", but at
the incarnation a god was not begotten. God begat a son who, insofar
as His deity is concerned, is eternal (Micah 5:2). This reading renders
these MSS as untrustworthy and depraved! The Arian heresy
resulted from Origen's editing the Greek manuscripts encountered in his
travels and appears in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Aleph which were
derived from copying his work.
Modern scholarship purports that these two codices were copied around
350–380 A.D. The reader can see how well that fits in with the fact that

107

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5Constantine told Eusebius to prepare the copies for him in 331. The
material that Jerome used (Origen's Hexapla and, in places, his edited
New Testament) was almost word for word like Sinaiticus Aleph andVaticanus B.
Helvidius,1 a great orthodox scholar of the fourth century and acontemporary of Jerome's, accused Jerome of using corrupted Greek
manuscripts. Remember, Jerome was using Origen's work and from thathe produced the Latin Vulgate. Likewise, Aleph and "B" have their rootsin Origen. Thus Helvidius condemns them all, for even in his day that"fountain" was known to be corrupt.
Moreover, whoever copied out Vaticanus obviously did not believe he had
the Word of God in his hands for there are misspellings, faulty grammar,
numerous omissions, whole lines recopied, and lines and clauses omitted.
According to nearly all scholars, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are "close
brothers". They differ many times but they are of the same "textual
type", using as they did Origen's fifth column and his New Testament.

ALEXANDRINUS "A"
A third manuscript often referred to in textual criticism literature is"Alexandrinus A". Dated as a 5th century witness, though it may be still
earlier, "A" often follows the Traditional Text in the gospels. It reads like"B" and Aleph in Acts and the epistles.2 This MSS also contains the two"Epistles of Clement" in which Clement of Alexandria teaches that:1.

Men are saved by works (II Clem.2:12, 15);

2.

Christians are in danger of going to hell (II Clem.3:8);

3.

Christians don't get new bodies at the resurrection (IV Clem.4:2);

4.

He was a prophet who wrote Scripture (II Clem.4:11); and5.

The male and female in I Corinthians 11:9 (speaking of Christ's being thehead, then the husband, followed by the wife in the order or chain of
authority) were anger and concupiscence (II Clem.5:4). Not believing theBible literally, Clement both fantasized and spiritualized the Scriptures.

1

Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace eds., (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1892; rep. 1983), p. 338.

2

Still, "A" is by far the purest text of the "5 Old Uncials"; Burgon, The Traditional Text, op.
cit., p. 213.

108

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5

THE SCHOLARS VERSUS JESUS – THE BATTLE
CONTINUESMark 12:37 relates that the "common people" heard Jesus gladly. With
the exception of a few like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, it was
the scholars and religious leaders of His own day who rejected andresisted Him most vehemently. Nothing has changed for the great
majority of modern scholarship rejects both God's promise that His Word
would be preserved as well as the deity of Jesus Christ. It is still thecommon people who keep holding on to the true God-given, Godpreserved Text upon which the King James was based.
The new translations profess to be revisions of the 1611 King James.
They are not for they are not even from the same Greek text. A radicallydifferent Greek New Testament was produced and has been used as thefoundation for the new translations. We have had a new "bible" foisted
upon us which is not a Bible at all for God authored only ONE Bible.
Equally distressing is that the numerous modern translations are being
sponsored and/or produced by publishing companies and by individuals
who answer to no ecclesiastical arm of the Church. There is no one towhom they are accountable. Thus faithfulness to accurate translation isof little consequence to most of them. The criteria has become readability
rather than correctness, and after a Madison Avenue sales promotion
advertising the product as "easy to understand" or "reads just like today's
newspaper", the final criteria and motive become that of profit.
The Westcott-Hort Greek text contains about 5,788 departures from theGreek text of the Textus Receptus.1 There are about 40 major omissions.
These omissions deal with the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, thedeity of Jesus, and Jesus' authority. The readings of the 1611 KingJames translation are supported by third and fourth century Westernand Byzantine manuscripts which are of the same age as Vaticanus B
and Aleph. The Textus Receptus exalts Jesus in about ten passages inwhich the others tend to disparage and detract from Him. Out of thenearly 8,000 verses in the New Testament, 152 contain doctrinal
corruptions in the W-H text.

1

Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, op. cit., pp. 312–313.

109

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5

THE NESTLE GREEK TEXT
Based upon the Westcott and Hort N.T., the text of Eberhard Nestle (orthe Aland-Nestle26 or the third edition of the United Bible Society [UBS3],
both of which are founded on the Nestle text and are almost identical toit), is being used today as the Greek New Testament in most of theseminaries. It contains about four changes per verse when compared to
the Textus Receptus. Incredibly, we are told this does not affect a single
Christian doctrine. But it does – it creates doubt in the minds of even themost devout that they really have an infallible Bible in their hands. It
devastates the Christian's faith that the Bible is really the Word of God.
Eberhard Nestle's Greek text has 36,191 changes in the New Testament
as compared to the Textus Receptus. Many of the changes are "minor".
After all, although the new translations read differently from the true
text, most is still recognizable. However, having been edited many times,
the resulting text is no longer the infallible Word of God. That which wasonce a Holy deposit from the Creator to His creatures has been pollutedby the hands of men and man's spiritual nakedness has thereby been
exposed (Exo.20:25–26). Moreover, there are 140,521 words in the TR.
Again, the W-H text differs in 5,788 places, and this involves 9,970 Greek
words (7%) in the N.T. alone. Further, 2,886 of the 9,970 are God
breathed words that have been eliminated!1 Is not this cause for alarm?
Dear reader, all Satan has ever needed is 7%. If we selectively alter
God's Word 7%, we can remove a significant amount of the words dealing
with blood atonement and with Jesus' deity thus casting doubt in theminds of young men and women as to whether they have available tothem the Word of God. Or, as the devil said, "Yea, did God really say
that? Is that really God's Word? You can't believe that!" The Whore ofRome teaches those very words and now she is continuing to seduce theProtestant church to use the same Greek text upon which the Roman
Catholic Latin Vulgate of Jerome is based (as well as the more modern
Roman version, the Rheims-Douay).
The Catholic church has almost succeeded in doing away with the Wordof God as translated by Tyndale, which God has providentially watchedover all of these years. We are always seeing footnotes (such as the Great
Commission as given in Mark 16 and many other passages) that inform
us that "the oldest, best, most reliable, most trustworthy, manuscripts
1

Waite, Defending the King James Bible, op. cit., p. 188.

110

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5

read differently". What this means in simple language is, according to
the scholars, an "untrustworthy manuscript" is one written on poor
quality paper and done in the handwriting of a non-professional scribe. A"trustworthy" one is written on high quality paper or vellum, andobviously prepared by highly educated professional scribes or scholars inneat capital letters – despite the fact that there may be many
misspellings and omissions. However, they are referring to less than ten
manuscripts and almost always only two – Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
Aleph.
This is no more logical than if an alien came from another planet1 inouter space and perhaps found a Bible with notes written on the edges
and words highlighted or underlined. If he reasoned as our modern
scholars, it would be judged as corrupt and untrustworthy. By the same
logic, a Bible on a shelf which had never been used except for occasionalreference would be declared good and trustworthy because it was clean
and neat.
An example, as noted above, is Mark 16:9–20 where many Bibles containa very dishonest footnote which states that the oldest and most reliable
Greek MSS do not contain these verses. As noted on page 31, we haveover 3,000 New Testament Greek manuscripts, none of which is complete– neither does any contain all four of the gospels in their entirety. Over1,800 contain Mark 16:9–20 and only three do not.2 So you see, thefootnote is both very dishonest and misleading. As mentioned previously,
Vaticanus even has a space left exactly the size of those verses. Morethan ninety-nine percent of the Greek manuscripts have those verses;
they are THE WORD OF GOD.
1

This of course is not a possibility for there is no one out there. We have not even foundanother planet in all the vast regions of space other than the 9 in our own solar system
although scientists constantly allude to such entities to the end that the laymen are
deceived about such matters. We already know that no higher forms of life (if indeed any
forms at all) exist on these planets other than the earth itself. Further, Psalms 115:16
teaches us that the abode of mankind is the earth. Thus all men in existence will befound upon the earth. Lastly, there can be no superior alien life forms in space as man
was created a "little lower than Angels" and in "the image of God". What could possibly
be superior to that?

2

Again, this was gleaned from Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering's taped interview before theMajority Text Society in Dallas, Texas (Summer 1995). In Burgon's day (1871 A.D.), 620
of the then extant mss contained Mark 16; only Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph did nothave verses 9–20, Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark, op.
cit., p. 71.

111

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5

THE CANONThe Old Testament was canonized prior to Jesus' incarnation; tradition
says that Ezra probably was the leader of this compilation. Regardless,we know there was something that was recognized by the populace as"Scripture" to which Jesus referred, and He said that it could "not be
broken". The people of Jesus' day knew what He meant when He referredto the "Scriptures".
Rabbinical writings tell us that the O.T. canon was confirmed by a council
meeting of Rabbis and Pharisees in Jamnia c.100 A.D. However, thatmeeting did not determine the canon as some churches and seminaries
teach for it was a synod of Christ rejecting Jews meeting after the Temple
had been destroyed. No canon ever was established by unsaved men but
by God through men who believed in Him! The Old Testament wascanonized before Jesus came. Jesus said "the" Scriptures so the canon
had been settled previously. When Jesus spoke the word "Scripture", noone in the audience raised his hand and asked Him to clarify – everyone
knew of which He spoke.
The Old Testament was accurately recorded.1 Every individual letter was
numbered by the Jewish scribes who were of the Tribe of Levi and madeoverseers of the Scriptures by God. When it became necessary to recopy
the parchments or scrolls, the scribes had to use a particular kind of ink
on a special type parchment, write in so many columns of a specific sizeand so many lines. Within thirty days, it had to be examined andcompared to the original. If four errors were found on one parchment, theexamination went no further and the whole was rejected. Each time theywrote God's name (the tetragrammation "YHWH" from which we latercoined the word "Jehovah") they cleaned their pens and washed theirbodies if perspiring. When the scrolls were worn out, they were officiallyand solemnly buried or burned so they would not be profaned, torn intofragments, or altered.
The Old Testament precisely as we have it was endorsed by Jesus when
He appeared in the flesh on the earth fifteen hundred years after Moses.
Jesus accused the Jewish leaders of His day of many sins but, among all
the evils He charged, not once did He intimate they had in any degree
1Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, Vol. I, (San Bernadino, CA: Here'sLife Publishers, Inc., 1990), pp. 53–55; also Pache, Inspiration and Authority of Scripture,
op. cit., p. 187.

112

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5

corrupted the canon, either by addition, subtraction or alteration. Ifbooks had been omitted from the canon Jesus certainly would have said
so and He would have added them to the Old Testament. Furthermore,
had there been books in the canon which should not have been included,
the Lord Jesus would have marked and/or deleted them. To the contrary,
every statement He made with regard to Scripture confirmed the canon
as it had come down to His day. The Lord did charge that they had
developed a system of oral traditions which had come to take precedence
over the Word of God, but He said the Scriptures themselves could not be
broken (that is, they would come to pass – they would be preserved). It isan amazing phenomenon that our modern critics, in their arrogance, deny
to Christ the very insight which they claim to possess.

THE APOCRYPHA
These books are mainly the product of the last three centuries B.C., atime during which written prophecy had ceased. They were accepted aspart of the sacred literature by the Alexandrian Jews and, with the
exception of the Second Book of Esdras, are found interspersed among the
Hebrew Scriptures in the ancient copies of the Septuagint or LXX.1 The
godly Jews under Ezra rejected the Apocrypha as having been inspired by
the LORD when they formed the Old Testament canon. Josephus (c.100
A.D.) confirms that these books were not considered as "divine" in his

1Jones, The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis, op. cit., pp. 10–54. The reader should, in all
fairness, be apprised of the fact that very nearly all references in the literature which
allude to the Septuagint in fact pertain to Origen's 5th column. That is, the real LXX
from all citation evidence as to N.T. references – indeed, for all practical purposes – theSeptuagint that we actually "see" and "use" is found to actually be only two manuscripts,
Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus a. This is especially true of Vaticanus. Although this fact isdifficult to ferret out from among the vast amount of literature on the subject, it may beverified by numerous sources. Among them, the reader is directed to page 1259 in The
New Bible Dictionary op. cit., (Texts-Versions) where D.W. Gooding admits this when herelates that the LXX of Jer.38:40 (Jer.31:40 in the MT) as shown in figure 214 has beentaken from the Codex Sinaiticus. Thomas Hartwell Horne is even more direct in An
Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 9th ed., Vol. II,(London, Eng.: Spottiswoode and Shaw, 1846), fn. 1. p. 282 and fn. 3 p. 288. It has been
established that both were produced from Origen's 5th column. Thus, the Septuagint
which we actually utilize in practical outworking, the LXX which is cited almost ninety
percent of the time, is actually the LXX that was written more than 250 years after thecompletion of the New Testament canon – and by a "Catholicized Jehovah's Witness" atthat! Moreover, it must be seen that the testimony of these two corrupted manuscripts isalmost solely responsible for the errors being foisted upon the Holy Scriptures in both
Testaments by modern critics!

113

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5day. He informs us that the canon was closed c.425 B.C.1 The Apocrypha
gradually rose in esteem in the apostate Roman (Western) Church until
the Council of Trent (1546 A.D.) affirmed the canonicity of the greater
part. In making this decision, the Catholic Church sided with the Jews of
Alexandria Egypt in considering the Apocrypha sacred. Remember that
it was in Alexandria that Mary was revered as the second person of the
Trinity by the so called "Christians". Although Jerome rejected the
Apocrypha, it has now been incorporated into his Vulgate by the Roman
Catholic Church.
The New Testament contains 263 direct quotes from the Old Testamentand 370 allusions to the Old Testament. Though some have claimed for
the Apocrypha several vague "allusions" in the New Testament, these are
nebulous mirages. Not one time did anyone in the New Testament referto or quote the Old Testament Apocrypha. Jesus never referred to the
Apocrypha. Had these books belonged in the Old Testament, why did the
Lord not say so? The Old Testament had been canonized long before
Jesus was born.
Yet Origen's fifth column includes the Old Testament Apocrypha.
Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus include the Apocrypha as part of the text of
the Old Testament.2 We are being told that Vaticanus is the mostaccurate Greek text which we have, but it includes the Apocrypha andApocryphal books – none of which were canonized. Yet we are expectedto accept Vaticanus B's testimony as authoritative over hundreds of other
Greek manuscripts.
Remember, Vaticanus B leaves out of the Book of Revelation "Mystery
Babylon the Great", "the seven heads are seven mountains upon which
the woman (harlot) sits", and "the woman is that great city which reigns
over the kings of the earth". What organized religious group would liketo have such telling passages left out? It is not surprising that the bookwhich so definitively and powerfully speaks of Christ Jesus' Second
Coming and Satan's defeat should itself be the chief object of Satan's
attack.

1

Josephus, Against Apion (Contra Apionem), I, 8).

2Along with spurious Apocryphal books such as "Epistle to Barnabas" and "Shepherd of
Hermas" in the New Testament.

114

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5

The "official" church was slow in accepting the Revelation as canonical,
especially the Greek speaking eastern portion.1 The rebukes to the sevenchurches in Asia Minor cut too close to the bone in the "organized" earlychurch. The rebukes of Laodicea (Rev.3) may well have been the reason
why the Council of Laodicea (4th century) chose to omit Revelation fromits list of books to be read publicly. There was also a strong bias against
the book's millennial doctrine, which is the case even today.2 As a result,the Revelation is not found in nearly as many manuscripts as is the restof the New Testament. Only about one in fifty contains it.3
Thus in Revelation, and to a lesser extent in the rest of the New
Testament, we must occasionally turn to the Latin West for confirmation
on a disputed reading.4 The Latin Christians who opposed Rome weremore deeply committed in their faith than those who were in the Greek
East. They were an important channel through which God preserved thetext of His Word. Though the primary source was the Greek speaking
East, the foregoing enables us to see why there would be a sprinkling of
Latin readings in the Authorized Version. Many of the great doctrinalwords in the English Bible are based on a Latin derivative, not upon the
Greek. The result is that we encounter some occasional refinement andverification from the Latin and Syriac regions.5
Vaticanus B reveals itself as a corrupted manuscript for it adds the
Apocrypha to the text of the Bible while subtracting from the Word of
God at the previously mentioned omissions as well as many others.
As regarding the Apocrypha, how does one know that Tobit, for example,
is not a God inspired book? In the story, "Tobit" was accidentally blindedby sparrow dung (2:10); he goes about with "Raphael", an angel traveling1

Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, op. cit., p. 17.

2

Ibid.

3

Ibid., p. 27.

4

Ibid.

5

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., pp. 193–213. Dr. Hills argues withconvincing force & plausibility that these readings, which include the last 6 verses of the
22nd chapter of Revelation, may well represent a slight smattering of original readingsthat fell out of the text of the Eastern Church over the years but had been retained in theWestern version and were subsequently and providentially restored by Erasmus. Indeed,
the true Church, which was hiding from Roman persecution, always had an uncorrupted
text as Dr. F. Nolan's 28 year study showed (An Inquiry, op. cit., pp. xvii–xviii).

115

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5

incognito, who lies about his name, lineage, and identity (3:16–17, 5:4–5,
12, cp. 6:6). Azarias (Raphael's assumed name) teaches that: the smoke
derived from burning the heart and liver of a fish will repulse and/or
exorcise demonic spirits (6:6–7, 16–17); a fish's gall will heal blindness(6:8); and that alms (good works) "purge away all sins" (12:9).
The Word of God, however, teaches that Jesus accomplished that by His
once for all finished work in His atoning death and resurrection for thesins and sin of all of Adam's offspring. It affirms that man is saved byGod's grace (unmerited favor) through faith in Christ Jesus as a free gift
(Eph.2:8), and not by works of righteousness which we have done (Titus
3:5)! Furthermore, in the Holy Scriptures exorcism is attained andsecured simply by the power and authority found in the Name of Jesus.
Yet according to Origen, Tobit is "inspired" in the same sense as were thefour gospels.
The spurious nature of the Apocryphal book "The Shepherd of Hermas" isreadily seen when compared to the Holy Scripture. For example in thethird book of Hermas (Similitude IX, verse 121–124) we are told by an
Angel (the Shepherd) that no man can enter the kingdom of God unless
he is clothed by the garments of the four virgin women mentioned in thissimilitude. Furthermore, these four women are called "the holy spirits"
and their garments are their names. We are informed that it will avail aman nothing to only take up the name of the Son of God unless he also
receives the garment of the four virgins as even the Son of God bears
their names. Thus the story adds to and contradicts the Gospel of Jesus.
Now the most subtle form of heresy offered to man has always been thatof "Jesus and ... ". When dealing with the subject of Salvation, anythingthat is added to Jesus and Him alone is not merely error – it is heresy.
The power of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus is found in its simplicity.
When man embellishes the Gospel by adding religious "strings" he always
diminishes its force.
The only books of value among any of these books are those of First andSecond Maccabees. Although they do not belong to the O.T. canon, unlike
the mythological, spurious Bible contradicting material found in the otherextra-biblical books, the data found in Maccabees does seem to be a fairly
reliable historical account of the Selucid oppression of the Jews and therevolt lead by the Maccabean priesthood against that tyranny andpersecution (171–37 B.C.).

116

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5Over the years much has been said concerning the fact that the firstedition of the King James Bible contained the Apocrypha. It is true thatthe publisher of the 1611 edition did insert the Apocrypha between the
Testaments, but it was never included within the Old Testament text as
was so done in the Hexapla, in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
The Cambridge group that translated the Apocrypha consisted of seven of
the 1611 translators. They rendered the entire work into English but forhistorical purposes only – not as inspired Scripture.1 To assure that
there would be no misunderstanding as to their views, the translators
gave seven reasons the Apocrypha should be totally rejected as part of theinspired canon.2 The Apocrypha was removed even from the space
between the Testaments in the second edition; meanwhile, it in no way
affected the accuracy of the texts of the Old or New Testaments.3

1

Waite, Defending the King James Bible, op. cit., p. 85. Dr. D.A. Waite "cut his teeth" on
the Westcott-Hort Greek text at Dallas Theological Seminary (earning high A's) before
the Nestle-Aland or United Bible Society Greek saw the light of day in its classrooms. He
also sat at the feet of Bible Greek scholars while majoring in classical Greek and Latin at
the University of Michigan. Twenty-one years later, he became persuaded through his
own private study that the Textus Receptus was the true N.T. text.
Dr. Waite has acquired 66 semester hours in combined Classical and Koine Greek fromthe University of Michigan & Dallas Theological Seminary as well as 25 semester hours
in Hebrew (he garnered all A's in both languages while at Dallas). This does not include
his 8 semester hours of Latin, 8 semester hours of French, or 11 semester hours of
Spanish. Thus, Dr. Waite has amassed a total of 118 semester hours (1,888 regular classhours) in foreign languages! Whatever differences the modern critics of the King James
Bible and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts may have with Dr. Waite, they cannot
justifiably criticize his preparation and training in these essential disciplines.

2

They are: 1. None are in the Hebrew language whereas the Old Testament is so written,
2. None of the writers ever claims to be inspired by God, 3. These books were neveraccepted as sacred Scripture by the Jewish Church and thus never endorsed by our Lord,
4. They were not accepted as sacred books during the first four centuries by the
Christian Church, 5. They contain fabulous statements as well as statements which
contradict not only the canonical Scriptures but themselves – such as in the two Books of
Maccabees, three differing accounts of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes are given in as
many different places, 6. It contains doctrines that are at variance with the Bible such as
effectual prayers for the dead and attaining sinless perfection, 7. It teaches immoral
practices such as lying, suicide, assassination, and magical incantation.

3

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 230.

117

The Greek Text of W-H

chapter 5

The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth,purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve themfrom this generation for ever.
Psalms 12:6-7

118

VI. HOW HORT CONTROLLED AND SEDUCED
THE 1881 COMMITTEEHORT "INVENTS" A HISTORY OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT
Remember that Westcott and Hort joined this revision committee having
worked secretly for over twenty years preparing their own private New
Testament. Recall that they violated the charge which the church laid
upon them regarding the kind of changes that were to be made in therevision. The church said to make only "minor" alterations, such as,
capital letters, punctuation, and the removal of archaic words. But
Westcott and Hort seduced the committee into a covenant of secrecy,
meeting and working in this clandestine fashion for eleven years. Now
contrast that with the openness of the King James Committee. The
entire nation of England knew what was forthcoming having been kept
informed by the translators as the work progressed. There were no
surprises in 1611. But in 1881, suddenly there appeared a radicallydifferent Greek text.
Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener – a very learned man of God and the most capable,
eminent textual critic of his day with regard to the N.T. manuscripts aswell as the history of the Text – served on the committee and tried tostem the tide, but he was systematically out voted.1 Hort was such atremendous advocate that he convinced the majority of the members toaccept his and Westcott's translation almost to the exclusion of any other
opinion. Few of the other translators were familiar with the techniques
and nuances of textual criticism. Point by point they fell under Hort's
persuasive spell, a talent of near legendary proportion which Hort isreported by many to have possessed.2
Time and again, Hort's side would out vote Scrivener. When Scrivener
realized what was happening, he should have broken the foolish vow of
secrecy and exposed the entire affair to the world. Thus he failed the
Lord and the Church in this whole matter. Bishop Wilberforce, originally1

D.O. Fuller, Which Bible?, op. cit., pp. 290–295. Also see p. 120 where Dr. Fuller quotes
from Sir Robert Anderson's The Bible and Modern Criticism, 5th ed., (London: Hodder
and Stoughton, 1905), pp. 104–105.

2

Ibid., p. 291. It was said that Hort would have made an unbeatable lawyer.

119Hort Seduced 1881 Committee

chapter 6

appointed to chair the committee, saw what was happening at the very
onset. Unable to bear the situation, he systematically absented himself
after the first meeting and refused to take part in the proceedings.1 Yet,
inconceivably, he also remained silent as to what he had seen and heard
during the remaining three years of his life.
Nearly every Bible written in English since 1881 has used as its basic
New Testament text the Westcott-Hort edition (Origen's privately"edited" N.T.). This text has passed down to us via Eusebius through thecopies which he prepared for Constantine. The two remaining products ofthis "recension" are known today as codices Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus
Aleph.
Hort's problem was how to overthrow the Textus Receptus and supplant itwith Codex Vaticanus B, thereby elevating that manuscript above thesum total of all other extant manuscripts – even though 90-95% agreed intext with the Textus Receptus and yet were different from B. To achieve
this goal he had to produce a convincing history of the text in order toexplain why essentially only one type of text had survived and beenpreserved in all the later manuscripts from the fourth and fifth centuries
on. Then he had to show and explain how this "historical account"justified the rejection of the dominant text, the Textus Receptus.
GENEALOGICAL METHOD

Hort's first step in solving the problem was to take the position that the
New Testament could be treated as any other book. In other words, that
it was not of a supernatural origin. This allowed the use of thegenealogical (family tree) method, developed by the students of theclassics, to be applied to the Greek manuscripts.2 Such a technique isonly applicable if there has been no deliberate altering of the text.
However, as already cited, Second Corinthians 2:17 tells us that the text
was being altered even as far back as the time of Paul. One of the great
enemies of God, Marcion the Gnostic (fl. c.140 A.D.) deliberately altered,shortened and removed from the mss to which he had access any
Scripture which taught the deity of Christ.

1

Fuller, Which Bible?, op. cit., p. 291.

2

Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, (Nashville, TN: Thomas
Nelson, 1977), p. 32.

120

Hort Seduced 1881 Committee

chapter 6

How did Hort deal with the problem of potential text tampering? He won
the day by simply authoritatively proclaiming that the text showed "nosigns of deliberate falsification ... for dogmatic (theological) purposes".1
Amazingly, this brash misstatement of fact went almost unchallenged.
Let us examine how the genealogical method worked.2 Westcott and Hort
applied this technique in order to get to the place where the witness of
one manuscript could outweigh that of many. Beginning with theapostles' autographs, i.e., the original copies of the New Testament
written by the apostles, let us suppose that two copies were produced
from these originals and identified as "Copy 1" and "Copy 2". If sevencopies were made from Copy 2, they would represent the third generation(the apostles' autographs being the first generation, Copies 1 and 2, thesecond).
GENEALOGY:
Apostles Autographs

copy 1copy 21 2 3 4 5 6 7If copy 2 is lost, thencopy 1 outweighs 1 - 7
True, but only if nomalice has entered.

Now if Copy 2 were lost, Copy 1 would "outweigh" the combined
testimony of the seven copies which are of the third generation because
copy 1 was of the second generation, hence nearer to the original reading.
That would be true if malice had not entered into the history of MS
transmission, but once malice has entered, we cannot know if someone
has deliberately falsified Copy 1. Thus, one may no longer assert that
Copy 1 outweighs the seven copies of the third generation. This method
was used to justify the rejection of the majority text. It was W-H's mostinvaluable tool.
Its application enabled them to overthrow thetestimony of nearly 95% of the manuscripts.
1

Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 282.

2

E. C. Colwell, "Genealogical Method: Its Achievements and its Limitations", Journal of
Biblical Literature, LXVI, (1947), p. 111.

121

Hort Seduced 1881 Committee

chapter 6

Hort used this tool to reduce the manuscripts into four families (voices or
witnesses). These four families or voices Hort assigned the designations"Neutral" (consisting primarily of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus a),"Alexandrian", "Western" (or Roman) and "Syrian".1 He borrowed theidea from Griesbach (1745–1812) who had previously worked along
similar lines. Johann Jakob Griesbach was a disciple of J.S. Semler(1725–1791).2 Both Semler and Griesbach differed from Hort, concludingthat there were only three families.
As W/H read through the manuscripts, they would determine (often quite
subjectively) that a given ms read like the ones at Alexandria, Rome, or
those at Antioch (which are referred to as Syrian or Byzantine) whereas
others they deemed purely neutral (because they supposedly did notembellish or "detract" concerning Jesus, i.e., Vaticanus or Sinaiticus).
Reducing the manuscripts into four families enabled them to lump large
masses of the extant manuscripts into only one voice or one witness.
Next, Hort set about to prove that the Syrian family was an inferior
witness, even inconsequential. How did he accomplish that goal – how
did he "prove" that all the Syrian manuscripts were unimportant?
CONFLATION

3

Hort did so by his second contrivance – his conflation theory. Once amanuscript had been assigned to a family (or text type) on the basis ofcharacteristic variants (readings) which were shared in common, any
manuscript which exhibited readings of another family was declared to be"a mixture". "Conflation" was supposed to be a special mixture – notmerely the result of simple substitutions of the reading of one document
1

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 33. The "Syrian" is also
referred to as "Byzantine" and is an identical "twin brother" to the Textus Receptus. It isalso referred to as the "Traditional" or "majority" text.

2

The liberal "Father of German rationalism" who originated the idea of "familyclassification". Johann Salomo Semler taught that the formation of the Biblical canon
and text was entirely a human process, an accident of history totally apart from theguiding hand of God. He also was the author of the "accommodation theory" which set
forth the principle that it is morally permissible to lie about one's beliefs when speaking
publicly because the audience doesn't have the background to "understand" the full truth.
Thus it was taught that the minister could assert from the pulpit that the Scriptures
were verbally inspired, inerrant, etc., in order to "accommodate" his congregation who
was unlearned in matters of text criticism so as not to upset or unsettle them thereby
creating a "misunderstanding" and/or an imbroglio. Such is the meat upon which liberal
text critics and liberal pastors chew.

3

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., pp. 34–35.

122Hort Seduced 1881 Committee

chapter 6

for another – but combinations of both readings in order to form acomposite whole.1 Thus the conflate readings would always be longer.
Logic demanded that a text with a conflate reading had to be younger
than the text which contained the various components of the conflate
reading. In other words, you had to have had older pre-existing texts
from which to make the combination reading – and if they were older,
they were judged to be more faithful to the original writing.
Hort then offered eight examples of conflation where, by hisinterpretation, the Syrian text had combined the Neutral and Westernreadings. Modern textual critics reject Hort's "Neutral" family; hence
they only recognize three voices, saying that the Neutral and Alexandrian
are the same. Thus to the Modern, the Syrian text is not pure but a
combination of the Alexandrian and Western readings. The entire
conflate theory is substantiated by only eight readings taken from justtwo books of the twenty-seven in the New Testament! This conflate
theory has been proven false about fifteen times in the past. The problem
is that all the books proving it false are no longer in print, it having been
believed that the fallacious theory had once and for all been laid to rest.
The eight passages offered as conflations are Mark 6:33, 8:26, 9:38, 9:49
and Luke 9:10, 11:54, 12:18 and 24:53. These pitiful few were all thatthey could offer to prove their theory, yet there are 7,957 verses in the
New Testament! In other words, they could only detect eight verses outof almost 8,000 as proof to support their theory! Actually the entire
concept of putting the manuscripts into different families is artificial andsynthetic.
It was essential in demonstrating the Syrian text to be a younger
conflation that no inversions be found – that is, where either the Neutral
or Western text contained a conflation of the other plus a Syrian reading.
If inversions existed, one would be unable to tell which reading was theoriginal. How did they so demonstrate? It was done by merely statingdogmatically that no inversions existed.2 These men had prepared for solong and delivered their conclusions and conjectures with such vigor andauthority, that their views were accepted by most without reservation orchallenge. Yet little actual documentation was presented to support thetheory.
1

Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 49.

2

Ibid., p. 106.

123

Hort Seduced 1881 Committee

chapter 6

THE "FATHERS" LETTERS – EXTERNAL & INTERNAL EVIDENCE

1

As further "proof" that the Textus Receptus was inferior, Hort contended
that the readings characteristic of the Syrian text did not occur in theearly church fathers' writings prior to A.D. 350. W-H claimed that
Chrysostom (died c.407 A.D.) was the first "father" who habitually used
the Syrian. This was the keystone in their theory – the crucial external
evidence. It was decisive for it apparently confirmed and supported the"no inversion" pillar.
Next Westcott and Hort devised two criteria of internal evidence asadditional supports for their theory. They called one such prop "intrinsic
probability" and the other "transcriptual probability".2
Intrinsic probability was author oriented. In other words, whichreadings make the best sense, fit the context best? What reading wasthat which the New Testament writer most probably would havewritten? The extremely subjective nature of such a technique is obvious
even to the non-textual critic for this attributes ability to the critic's
intellect beyond that which is credible!
Transcriptual probability was scribe or copyist oriented. Whichreadings, out of two or more probabilities, would most probably accountfor the origin of the other readings in successive stages of copying? This,of course, was based on the genealogical presumption (the family tree ofmss) and held that no malice had taken place – aside from inadvertent
mistakes.

However, these two internal evidences, transcriptual and intrinsic
probabilities, often cancel each other due to their highly subjective
natures.3 The mind of the critic thus becomes the final judge.4
Having already declared that any deliberate changes were not done for
doctrinal purposes, the question arises as to how Westcott and Hort knew
this. Aside from inadvertent copying mistakes, the presumed deliberate
1

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 36.

2

Ibid.

3

E.C. Colwell, "External Evidence and New Testament Criticism", Studies in the History
and Text of the New Testament, eds. B.L. Daniels and M.J. Suggs, (Salt Lake City UT:
Uni. of Utah Press, 1967), p. 4.

4John Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established,
Edward Miller ed., (London: George Bell and Sons, 1896), p. 67.

124Hort Seduced 1881 Committee

chapter 6changes gave rise to two textual canons.1 The first canon was "theshorter reading is preferred". This was based on an assumed propensityof scribes to add to the text. However, A.C. Clarke, Professor of Latin at
Oxford, showed in a study of classical text that scribes were most prone toaccidentally omit rather than add (Pickering p. 80, also my p. 281). Once
conflation had been accepted as factual, this canon became necessary andnatural in order to disallow the longer, fuller Syrian (TR) readings.
The second canon was that "the harder reading is to be preferred". Thus,
if there existed five or six variant readings of a text, the harder reading
was presumed to be the correct one. This was based on the assumed
propensity of the scribes to simplify a difficult text. But such is highly
conjectural! Where is the proof? None was ever offered. Hort thendeclared the Syrian text to be longer and more simple, thus eliminatingthat text from consideration – thereby winning the day!
Albeit, Hort's problem was not yet totally solved. He had to explain how
this Syrian (Byzantine – Textus Receptus) text came into being in the firstplace, and then explain how it came to dominate the field from the fifth
century unto the present. Why did this so-called "inferior" text totally
dominate in number such that nearly all of the extant Greek mss, about
95%, contain the same text?
THE "EARLY REVISION"

2

Hort's solution was an organized ecclesiastical revision performed byeditors and not merely by scribes.3 In other words, Hort proposed that in
the early church of the third and fourth century, the Alexandrian,
Neutral, and Western translations were competing with each other for
acceptance. Hort promulgated the theory that an official text had beencreated by the church with ecclesiastical backing for the purpose ofresolving the conflict, it having been completed by the middle of the
fourth century (c.350 A.D.).
Westcott and Hort theorized that this text was a deliberate creation byscholarly Christians for the purpose of producing a text in which thereadings reflected a compromise to end the turmoil over which of the1

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., pp. 79–85.

2

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., pp. 178–179. Dr. Hills' concise synopsis
of the W-H "solution" is most incisive and instructive.

3

Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 133.

125

Hort Seduced 1881 Committee

chapter 6

three competing texts should be accepted as authoritative.
They
proposed that the Traditional Text was the product of an "official
revision" (or "recension") of the New Testament which supposedly took
place at Antioch in two stages between 250 and 350 A.D.1 Thus their
theory was that the T.T. had ecclesiastical backing for the purpose of
constructing a text on which all could agree, and that it was because ofthis official backing that it overcame all rival texts and ultimately
became the standard New Testament of the Greek Church. Hortportrayed Lucian (Bishop of Antioch, died 311 A.D.) as its probableinitiator and overseer.
Thus Westcott and Hort advanced that it was the Christians themselves
who deliberately altered the Biblical text! This vacuous and specious
proposal borders on the preposterous for a genuine Christian would neverdo such a wicked thing. Being believers in the infallibility of God's Wordand in God's promises to preserve that same Word, they would fear
altering the Holy Text believing literally that there is a curse from God
on anyone who dares to so do.2
It is amazing that Westcott and Hort could seriously suggest that it was
the Christians who had deliberately altered the Scriptures instead of men
like Origen or Marcion who were Gnostics or Docetists and either did not
believe in the deity of Jesus or believed Him to have been a phantom.
These were the type of men who altered the Scriptures, not theChristians, for they believed them to be true and God breathed. W-Hwould have us believe that orthodox Christians corrupted the New
Testament text; that the text type used by the Protestant reformers was
the most unreliable of all and that the true text was not restored until thenineteenth century when it was brought out of the Pope's library andrescued out of a waste basket at Mt. Sinai.3 Modern textual critics would
also have us believe, themselves being so deluded and deceived, that
Westcott and Hort were providentially guided to construct a theory of thetrue text ignoring God's special providence and treating the text of the
New Testament as that of any other book. These critics envision that thetrue text has been lost to the church for centuries and that they
themselves, as prophets, are engaged in the monumental task of restoring1

Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., pp. 137–138.

2

Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32; Proverbs 30:5–6; Psalms 12:6–7 and Revelation 22:18–19.

3

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 110.

126

Hort Seduced 1881 Committee

chapter 6

the original readings – Westcott and Hort having begun this undertaking
by laying the foundation.

ECLECTICISM AND ITS FRUIT
Indeed, as Dr. Edward F. Hills has stated, if the true New Testament text
were lost for fifteen hundred years, – how could we ever be sure it was
restored precisely?1 At the time the Westcott-Hort theory was advanced,
its proponents (including B.B. Warfield) felt that by utilizing thetechniques contained within the theory the true "lost" text could
eventually be fully restored.2
Today's scholars no longer hold to the Westcott-Hort theory in toto, yettheir works always begin with W & H's final conclusion – namely thatthe text represented by the majority (the TR) is of no consequence andthat the true text lies mainly in the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS.
The modern critic uses what is known as the "eclectic" method of textual
criticism. Eclecticism is an outgrowth of the Westcott-Hort theory of
textual criticism. An eclectic editor "follows first one and then anotherset of witnesses in accord with what is deemed to be the author's style or
the exigencies of transcriptional hazards".3 The technique involves
subjective judgment, ignores the history of the text, emphasizing fewer
and fewer canons of criticism. Most moderns emphasize only two.4 These
are that a reading is to be preferred which best (1) suits the context, and(2) explains the origin of all others. Usually eclectics restrict the evidence
to only the internal evidence of variant readings.
Today, most of Westcott and Hort's terminology has been replaced withnew scholarly yet equally obscure sounding terms such as "Formal
equivalence" and "Dynamic equivalence". The work of the modern
textual critic/translator is largely composed of a balancing act. On one
end is formal equivalence and on the other, dynamic equivalence.
1

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 111.

2

B.B. Warfield, The Westminster Assembly And Its Work, (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1931), p. 239. Dr. Hills well critiques Warfield's inconsistent thinking: The KingJames Version Defended, op. cit., p. 110.

3

Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, andRestoration, 3rd ed., enl., (NY: Oxford University Press, 1992; original prt. 1964), p. 175.

4

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 23.
presentation on eclecticism is excellent (see his ch. 2).

127

Dr. Pickering'sHort Seduced 1881 Committee

chapter 6

At the formal equivalence end, the word in question is translated exactly
according to the Greek lexicon, paying little or no attention to the qualityof the sentence that is being produced. The result is nearly a word forword or literal rendition of the Greek into the other language. The
problem with this is that various languages contain different sentence
structure such that the resultant rendering is often out of context, out oforder within the sentence, and may be either nonsensical or evenmisleading. Almost always, it lacks emotion.
It is impossible to actually translate word for word from any language toanother and produce an intelligible result. For example, consider aliteral translation of the familiar John 3:16 passage – "For so loved the
God the world that the his Son the only begotten he gave that every one
the believes into him may not perish but may have life eternal". One
would hardly call this result "English". Realizing this, a condition has
been imposed by the proponents of formal equivalence to the effect that,though they deem a word for word translation of utmost importance, it
must not be done so rigidly as to produce nonsense as in our example.
This necessitates a counterbalance.
Today, dynamic equivalence is that counterbalance. At the other end of
the see-saw, the translator attempts to verbalize the "message" that isbeing conveyed. From the Greek, he extrapolates or takes out what hethinks the author had in mind. Then, instead of translating or matching
the words and wording as they are found in the grammar, words are
injected that express the thought of the original author in the language
the critic is using!? The NIV is notorious for doing this.1 Thus dynamic
1

Jay P. Green, Sr. (ed.), Unholy Hands on the Bible, Vol. II (Lafayette, IN: Sovereign
Grace Trust Fund Pub., 1992), pp. 119–318. Dr. Green, a well known Greek and Hebrew
scholar who has produced several Bible translations and a complete interlinear Bible infour volumes, has done the Church a great service in exposing the unfaithfulness of the
New International Version (NIV). Not only has the NIV committee selected the corrupt
critical Greek text as its New Testament base, Dr. Green reveals that the translators
were not even faithful in their rendering of it as they have left around 5 percent of the
Greek words altogether un-translated! "A slightly lesser percentage" of the original
Hebrew O.T. has been left un-translated (p. 120). Thus tens of thousands of God
breathed words are not in the NIV. Moreover, they have added over 100,000 words
without so signifying to the reader by placing such words in italics as did the AuthorizedKing James translators. All 100,000+ lack any Hebrew or Greek support whatever (pp.
120, 222–223). Both Waite and Green expose the NIV as being replete with free wheelingparaphrases rather than accurately rendering a translation. Nor are they alone in
exposing this unfit translation; see also: The NIV Reconsidered by Radmacher & Hodges;(Dallas, TX: Redencion Viva Pub., 1990) and Norman Ward, Perfected or Perverted,(Grand Rapids, MI: Which Bible Society).

128

Hort Seduced 1881 Committee

chapter 6

equivalence is, for all practical purposes, a paraphrase. A paraphrase
means to use several words to communicate the meaning of a single word.
For example, the Greek word theopneustos (θεοπνευστος = scripture is
God-inspired) in II Timothy 3:16 becomes "is given by inspiration of God".
The translator is constantly engaged in choosing between each extreme.
Such is extremely subjective and invariably one side of the see-saw isstrongly tipped – usually (though not always) toward the "formal" end forsuch is the natural inclination of the scholar. Instead, as much as
possible he should seek to render a verbal equivalence between the two
languages before him while still giving the sense, yet at the same time
attempt to inject the emotion and life of the original meaning.
Dr. D.A. Waite, a most qualified linguist (66 semester hours of combined
Classical and Koine Greek from the University of Michigan and Dallas
Theological Seminary, 25 hours in Hebrew, a total of 118 hours in foreign
languages, two earned doctorates, and over 35 years teaching experience),
maintains that it is at this very point the King James translators
exhibited superior translation technique because they avoided the
dynamic equivalence method, using instead "verbal" equivalence.1 "Thatis, the words from the Greek or Hebrew were rendered as closely as
possible into the English".2
Dr. Waite further points out that the 1611 translators were most carefulin their application of formal equivalence by carefully attending to the"forms" of the original wording. If the structure in the original language
could be brought into the English, they so did. That is, if the word was averb, they brought it over as a verb; they did not – as is common practiceby most modern translators – change or transform it into a noun or someother part of speech.
Thus we see that the modern designations delineated in the preceding
paragraphs can be and most often are just as subjective and non-scientific
as the former terms and techniques. Actually, these textual scholars
arrogate unto themselves (without any kind of ecclesiasticalauthorization) the authority to make free choice among the variant
readings as Colwell attests: "… free choice among readings … in manycases solely on the basis of intrinsic probability. The editor chooses
1

D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible, op. cit., pp. 89–132.

2

Ibid., pp. 90 and 98.

129Hort Seduced 1881 Committee

chapter 6that reading which commends itself to him as fitting the context ... The
weight of the manuscript is ignored. Its place in the manuscript tradition(author's emphasis).
But apart from divine
is not considered"1
revelation, what living man really possesses such insight? As Pickering
has observed – how can such rules be applied when neither the identity
nor the circumstances of the originator of a given variant is known?2
Moreover, to base a final decision as to the true text solely upon internalconsiderations is unreasonable, unacceptable, and wrong.3 It ignores themassive external evidence of over 5,000 Greek MSS/mss now extant aswell as the testimony of the letters of the early Church "Fathers" and thewitness of the early versions. As there is no actual history of thetransmission of the text, the choice between variants ultimately is
reduced to conjecture and guesswork: "the editing of an eclectic text rests
upon conjectures".4
Yet incredulously, most scholars do not practice pure eclecticism. Despite
all their disclaimers, they still work essentially within the W-H
framework.5 This may be seen in that the two most popular manual
editions of the Greek N.T. in use today, Nestle-Aland26 and UBS3, vary
but little from the W-H text (the same is true of the recent versions, RSVetc.) – demonstrating that little "progress" has been made in textual
theory since W-H.6
The result of these efforts to "restore" the readings to their pristine form
has been mainly that of dismay. The project is now viewed as impossible
by nearly all modern critics (though inexplicably the work continues).
Typical acknowledgments to this effect by foremost textual scholars are:1

E.C. Colwell, "Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program", Studies in Methodology in Textual
Criticism of the New Testament, (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill Pub., 1969), p. 154.

2

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 24.

3

Ibid., p. 25.

4

E.C. Cowell, "Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text", The
Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed. J.P. Hyatt, (New York: Abingdon Press, 1965), p. 372.

5

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 28.

6Eldon J. Epp, "The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism",
Journal of Biblical Literature, XCIII (1974): pp. 390–391.

130

Hort Seduced 1881 Committee

chapter 6

1"In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of von Soden,
we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite
likely that we never shall".

2"The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains therecovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We havealready suggested that to achieve this goal is well nighimpossible".

3"it is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible
cannot be recovered".

4"Great progress has been achieved in recovering an early formof text, but it may be doubted that there is evidence of one
original text to be recovered".

5"Each one of these critical texts differ quite markedly from allof the others. This fact certainly suggests that it is very
difficult, if not impossible to recover the original text of the New
Testament".

Thus all of these efforts over the past one hundred years have resulted in
maximum uncertainty6 as to the original reading of the New
Testament text. By stark contrast, that person who simply puts theirfaith in God's promise to PRESERVE His Word concludes that God has
so done and that it is to be found as the New Testament of the Greek
Church as well as in the vast majority of extant mss. Further, its text ispreserved in the English language in the King James Bible. Moreover,the person who does trust God's promise to preserve His Word is left withmaximum certainty –with peace of heart and peace of mind.
1

Kirsopp Lake, Family 13, (The Ferrar Group), (Phil., PA: Uni. of PA. Press, 1941), p. vii.

2

Robert M. Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Harper &Row, 1963), p. 51.

3

Robert M. Grant, "The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch", Journal of Biblical Literature,
LXVI (1947), p. 173.

4

K. W. Clark, "The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the
Greek New Testament", Journal of Biblical Literature, 85:1, (March, 1966), p. 16.

5

M. M. Parvis, "The Goals of New Testament Textual Studies", Studia Evangelica 6(1973): p. 397.

6

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., pp. 224–225. This designation and"maximum certainty" at the end of the paragraph are insights from Dr. Hills.

131

Hort Seduced 1881 Committee

chapter 6

Heaven and earth shall pass away:
but my words shall not pass away.
Mark 13:31

132

VII. THE HORTIAN–ECLECTIC THEORY REFUTEDTHE GENEALOGICAL METHOD FRAUD
We have seen that modern textual criticism's basic premise is that thetrue text of the New Testament has been lost and must be reconstructedby "scientific" means. Yet, is it not incredulous that we are expected tobelieve God would allow the true text to sink into oblivion for fifteen
hundred years only to have it brought to light again by two Cambridge
professors who did not believe it to be verbally inspired?1 As we read over
the work of Westcott and Hort, one thing noticeable is the entire lack of
their consideration of a supernatural element with regard to the
Scriptures.2 Thus having actually disavowed the doctrine of verbal
inspiration and the overshadowing hand of God on His Word, theirwritings contain no sense of the divine preservation of the text, a doctrine
which should be present in Christian deliberations.
Of course everyone would like to have the readings taken directly fromthe original manuscripts, but they are no longer in existence. So far,there have not been found any autographs of the New Testament
surviving today. This we deem to be the wisdom of God for surely wewould have made them idols as the children of Israel did with the serpentof brass which Moses had made nearly 800 years earlier (II Kings 18:4).
Hezekiah had to destroy the brazen serpent because the people began toworship it instead of the God who had delivered them from the plague.
People would do the same today – worship the paper instead of the God
about whom it was written. We do not worship the Bible. We worshipand serve the living God of whom it speaks.
With regard to the W-H theory, we reply that to treat the Scriptures as
any other book is to:(1) ignore the reality of Satan who ever seeks to alter God's Word ("yea, has
God said!" Genesis 3); and(2) ignore God's promise to preserve His Word.

But God promised to preserve His Word !
1

Fuller, Which Bible?, op. cit., p. 149.

2

Ibid., p. 165.

133

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

Hort said there were no signs of deliberate altering of the text for
doctrinal purposes, but the Scriptures and the church "Fathers" disagreewith him. Again, II Corinthians 2:17 says that "many" were corrupting
the Scriptures during the time of Paul. From the letters and works of the
Fathers, we know of Marcion the Gnostic who deliberately altered thetext for doctrinal purposes as early as 140 A.D. Other corrupters of
Scripture were named by the mid-second century by these church
Fathers. For example, Dionysius (Bishop of Corinth from A.D. 168 to176) said that the Scriptures had been deliberately altered in his day.1
Many modern scholars recognize that most variations were madedeliberately. Colwell, formerly agreeing with Hort's assertion, hasreversed his position:2"The majority of the variant readings in the New Testament
were created for theological or dogmatic reasons. Most of themanuals and handbooks now in print (including mine!) will tell
you that these variations were the fruit of careless treatment
which was possible because the books of the New Testament had
not yet attained a strong position as 'Bible.' The reverse is thecase. It was because they were the religious treasure of thechurch that they were changed ... most variations, I believe,
were made deliberately. ... scholars now believe that mostvariations were made deliberately"

The fact of deliberate numerous alterations in the early years of the New
Testament's existence introduces an unpredictable variable which:3(1) the rules of internal evidence (transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities)
simply cannot handle, and(2) nullifies the genealogical (family tree) method as a tool to recover theoriginal (Hort knew that such would be the case; hence his dishonest
statement that there was no deliberate altering).
1

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, op. cit., Book IV, ch. 23.

2

E.C. Colwell, What is the Best New Testament? (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1952), pp. 53, 58 & 49.

3

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 43. This seventh chapter
leans most heavily upon insights gleaned from Dr. Pickering's fourth chapter as well as
personal correspondence and telephone conversations. Born in Brazil of missionary
parents, Dr. Pickering has well over twenty years of extensive work in linguistics. He iscurrently associated with Wycliffe Bible Translators in the country of his birth. He
received his Th.M. in Greek Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary and M.A. and
Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Toronto.

134Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

The genealogical method rests on being able to identify unintentional
error as the clue to common ancestry. Agreement between manuscriptsof this kind is rarely a coincidence. Furthermore, it is now known thatW & H never applied the genealogical method to the New Testament
manuscripts!1 The charts which they offered did not exhibit actual
manuscripts. They were hypothetical and imaginary ones – as they
thought things should have been.2 Hort did not actually demonstrate theexistence of his historical facts. The charts existed only in the minds ofHort and Westcott.
Other noted scholars have attested that the genealogical method not only
has never been applied to the N.T., they have added that it cannot beapplied. For example, Zuntz said it was "inapplicable",3 Aland that it"cannot be applied to the NT",4 and Colwell concurred emphatically instating "that it cannot be so applied".5 Yet incredulously we read thatwith this method Westcott and Hort "slew the Textus Receptus"6 in theminds of the critics.
However, as Pickering summed the matter, since the method has not
actually been used, the Textus Receptus must be alive and well!7 Hortclaimed he used this weapon and spoke of the results of having applied
this method with such confidence that he won the day.8 Amazingly, the1M.M. Parvis, The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 4 Vols., (NY: Abingdon Press,
1962), Vol. IV, p. 611 (N.T. Text).

2

E.C. Colwell, "Genealogical Method", op. cit., pp. 111–112. The late Ernest Cadman
Colwell (d.1974) was widely acknowledged as the "dean" of N.T. textual criticism in North
America during the 1950's and 1960's. A liberal theologian, for many years he wasassociated with the University of Chicago as Professor and President.
Like Parvis, Colwell concluded that W-H never applied the genealogical method to the
N.T. mss & that Hort's intent was to "depose" the TR and not to establish a line ofdescent – that Hort's main points were subjective and deliberately contrived to achievethat end ("Hort Redivivus", Studies, op. cit., pp. 158–159).

3

Gunther Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), p. 155.

4

Kurt Aland, "The Significance of the Papyri for Progress in N.T. Research", The Bible inModern Scholarship, ed. J.P. Hyatt, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1965), p. 341.

5Colwell, "External Evidence", op. cit., p. 4.

6

Colwell, "Genealogical Method", op. cit., p. 124.

7

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 47.

8

Ibid.

135

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

fabrication was accepted as FACT, so much so that – despite all that has
been written to expose Hort's dishonesty in this matter – since his day
the genealogical method continues dominating the handbooks as being
the canonical method of "restoring" the original text of the N.T. Present
day scholars continue to go about their work and talk as though thegenealogical method not only can be, but has actually been applied to the
New Testaments mss and base their efforts on the supposed results.1

THE TEXT TYPE "FAMILIES" ARE ARTIFICIALFABRICATIONS
Many modern scholars now admit that text type "families" are "artificial"inventions and do not actually represent "science". Merrill M. Parvis
acknowledges:2"We have reconstructed text-types and families and sub-families
and in so doing have created things that never before existed onearth or in heaven. ... when we have found that a particularmanuscript would not fit into any of our nicely constructed
schemes, we have thrown up our hands and said that it
contained a mixed text".

Colwell asserts:3"The major mistake is made in thinking of the 'old text-types' as
frozen blocks, even after admitting that no one manuscript is aperfect witness to any text-type. If no one MS is a perfectwitness to any type, then all witnesses are mixed in ancestry (orindividually corrupted, and thus parents of mixture)".

Doubting "whether any grouping of manuscripts gives satisfactory
results",4 A.F.J. Klijn, continued:1
1

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 47.

2

M.M. Parvis, "The Nature and Task of New Testament Textual Criticism", The Journal of
Religion, XXXII (1952): p. 173.

3

E.C. Colwell, "The Origin of Texttypes of New Testament Manuscripts", Early Christian
Origins, ed. Allen Wikgren, (Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 135.

4

A.F.J. Klijn, A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text of the Gospels and Acts; parttwo 1949–1969, (Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill Pub., 1969), p. 36. This author haslearned via personal correspondence (13 May, 1989) from Dr. Theodore P. Letis that
Klijn, a well-known textual scholar, has been widely recognized as having attained to thefirst chair as the world's leading authority on the "Western" Text. With respect to a"pure" or "original" Western Text, Klijn himself acknowledged that "such a text did notexist" (Ibid., p. 64).

136

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7"It is still customary to divide manuscripts into the four wellknown families: the Alexandrian, the Caesarean, the Westernand the Byzantine. This classical division can no longer bemaintained. ... If any progress is to be expected in textual
criticism we have to get rid of the division into local texts".

Hence, neither "Syrian", "Alexandrian", "Neutral" nor the "Western"
testimony as an entity actually exists. These so-called families are
merely the synthetic, artificial products of Westcott's and Hort's
imaginations which were fabricated in order to utilize the genealogicalmethod – which allowed them to lump 80–95% of all individual witnesses
as one voice. The reality is that there is only the testimony of individual
manuscripts, "Fathers", and versions – not the voice of four families.
Thus the Byzantine or Syrian is not merely one witness. In any given
verse it represents the voice of hundreds or even several thousand
testimonies as to the true text. Furthermore, the evidence is that only
few of the Byzantine mss have been copied from any of the remainder.
They differ amongst themselves in many unimportant particulars.2 Inother words, all read so nearly alike that one can tell they are copies fromthe same text; yet the number of unimportant differences proves they
were not copied from one another. Modern scholars acknowledge thetruth of this.
In other words, the Byzantine mss are all orphans,3 and as such are
independent witnesses. By "orphans" we mean that, as with the Old
1

Klijn, A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text, op. cit., p. 66.

2

Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., pp. 46–47. John William Burgon was an Anglican
Priest and Dean of Chichester at Oxford from 1876 until his death in 1888. His
biographer called him "the leading religious teacher of his time" throughout England[E.M. Goulburn, Life of Dean Burgon, 2 Vols., (London: John Murray, 1892), Vol. I, p. vii].
Burgon's index of the Fathers is still the most extensive available, containing 86,489
quotations from 76 writers who died before 400 A.D. Although high Anglican in doctrine
and theology – and somewhat chiding in his presentation – his work is the fountain. Allother works published on this subject from the conservative view point continually quote
and/or refer to John Burgon's books, especially to The Revision Revised. A contemporaryof Westcott and Hort, he vigorously opposed both their text and theory and is generally
acknowledged as having been the leading voice of the opposition. Dean Burgon has often
been maligned and his contribution demeaned by liberal detractors "because of hislearned defense of the Traditional N.T. text in most of the handbooks on textual criticism;but his arguments have never been refuted" since he published in 1883 (Hills, The KingJames Version Defended, op. cit., p. 139). His book remains the classic reference to thisday; it is not light reading as it is replete with hard factual refutations to the W-H theory.

3

Kirsopp Lake, R. P. Blake and Silva New, "The Caesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark",
Harvard Theological Review, XXI (1929): pp. 348–349.

137

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

Testament, the originals and old copies were burned or buried and thus
committed to the earth for decay (as with a body) after they were copied.1
That is why we do not have any originals today. As they have neither
brothers, sisters nor surviving parents, the term "orphan" is therefore
applicable to the extant mss. As orphans, they are independent
witnesses to the true text of the New Testament.2
In addition, papyri with very distinctive readings existed side by side in
the same "ecclesiastical" province.3 This further argues that no text types
existed as proposed by the W-H Theory. So, as genealogy has not andcannot be applied to the problem, it would seem the individual witnesses
must be counted after all. We agree with Westcott and Hort that theyshould also be weighed and this matter will be discussed presently.
Much is made over the fact that Erasmus used "late manuscripts", but
this fails to recognize that all of our Old Testament manuscripts are"late". The oldest are dated around 900 A.D., and yet conservative Bible
believers do not question their authenticity or that the text contained
therein is not God breathed.4 Then why not trust the late mss of the New
Testament which Erasmus used? It does not matter that they were late.
The real issue is, were they actual copies of the original autographs orcopies of copies of the originals (called "apographa").
Regarding conflation – as Dean Burgon adeptly pointed out – why, if theTraditional Text were created by 4th-century Antiochian editors whose
regular practice had been to conflate (combine) Western and Alexandrian
readings, could Westcott and Hort after nearly thirty years of searching
throughout the Gospels find only eight supposed instances to offer as
proof of their thesis?5 Why could they find only eight verses out of nearly
8,000? Only a few more have been offered since by their followers.6
1

Lake et al., Harvard Theological Review, op. cit., p. 349.

2

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 54.

3

Aland, "The Significance of the Papyri", op. cit., pp. 334–337.

4

As a matter of fact, the O.T. Masoretic Text has undergone much undue critical attack in
the past and many evangelicals did begin to compromise and doubt its purity. The Dead
Sea Scrolls discovery upheld the MT and ended the controversy.

5

Burgon, The Revision Revised, op. cit., pp. 258–265, also see his footnotes.

6

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., pp. 175–176.

138

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

Wilhelm Bousset, a noted liberal German critic, agreed with Westcott andHort on only one of the eight.1 He totally disagreed with them on five andwas not sure about the other two. This German critic's final conclusion
was that W-H's principal proof, the eight examples, turned out to be theirrefutable proof that what they proposed was not correct. Like Burgon,
Bousset astutely pointed out that if conflation had been the customary
practice of the early church, W & H should have found hundreds ofexamples to bolster and confirm their conflate theory. Besides – as
Pickering asked in 1977 – if the "Syrian" text is the result of conflating(combining) Western and Alexandrian readings, where did the materialcome from which is only found in the Syrian readings?2
Indeed, the fact is that inversions do exist.3 Furthermore, of the few
passages which they offered, Mark 8:26, Luke 11:54 and Luke 12:18 are
not conflate readings of a Neutral and Western tradition, and it isdoubtful that Mark 6:33 and Luke 9:10 are. Moreover, it is just as
reasonable that the truth is the reverse of their explanation – namely,that the longer Syrian is the original text and that the shorter readings
resulted from omissions made in copying that original.

THE QUOTES FROM THE "FATHERS"The crucial external evidence that Westcott and Hort offered in support oftheir theory was that there were no Syrian readings in the Fathers'
quotes prior to A.D. 350.4 They maintained that Chrysostom, who died in
407, was the first Father to habitually use the Syrian. However, thesestatements are simply not consistent with the facts. In the first place,

1

Wilhelm Bousset, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur,
Vol. 11 (1894), pp. 97–101.

2

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 54.

3

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 60. B conflates in Col.1:12;
II Thes.3:4; Mar.1:28, 1:40 and Joh.7:39. The "Western" text conflates the "Syrian" and"Neutral" readings in Mat.4:13; Joh.5:37 and Acts 10:48. Codex Sinaiticus conflates
Joh.13:24; Rev.6:1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 17:4; etc.

4Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 91; also see p. 124 in this (FNJ's) work. The
reader will be interested to discover the prejudicious, subjective approach used by themodern critic in dismissing the vast damaging evidence that the Fathers writings placeagainst their theories: "When the manuscripts of a Father differ in a given passage, it isusually safest to adopt the one which diverges from ... the Textus Receptus ..." Metzger,
The Text of the New Testament, op. cit., p. 87.

139

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

Chrysostom did not just give Syrian quotes.1 Furthermore, according to
Edward Miller's exhaustive compilation of the writings of the church"Fathers", Origen (185? – 254?) gave 460 quotes which agree with thereadings of the Traditional Text and 491 quotes siding with the"Neologian" text.2 In view of this, how then could Hort declare that
Origen's quotations "exhibit no clear and tangible traces of the Syrian
text"?3
Miller's study also revealed that Irenaeus, a second century church
Father who according to Hort represented the "Western" text, gave 63
quotes from the Syrian (Traditional Text) text with only 41 from the socalled "Neologian" family.4 It should be noted that when referring to the"Fathers", this author is not endorsing their doctrines but merely
recognizing and emphasizing what they accepted and believed to be
Scripture at that early date. Miller further found that prior to Origen,the Traditional Text was quoted two to one over all others of the Fathers'
quotes if we omit Justin Martyr, Heraclean, Clement of Alexandria, andTertullian.5 Why should we omit them? They were carried away withOrigen's confusion. Yet even if we include them, Miller's study showed
the ratio still favored the Traditional Text 1.33 to 1. Thus it is seen thatHort lied about the quotes from the Fathers and gave no actual statistics.
Miller, posthumous editor to Burgon, made full use of Burgon's patristic
citations with regard to the testimony of the ante-Nicene Fathers. His
work covered 86,489 extant citations from seventy-six of these Fathers.
Of those who died before 400 A.D., the Traditional Text (identical "twin1

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., pp. 62–63. Dr. Hills makes
the same observation citing, as does Dr. Pickering, the study by Geerlings and New(Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 179).

2

Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., pp. 100, 121. This work of Burgon's was completed
and edited by his friend and colleague, Edward Miller, who was – like the Dean – also an
Anglican Priest. It was published in 1896, after the Dean's death in 1888. Miller's term
"Neologian" included both "Neutral" and "Western" readings. It was, in fact, the Greek
text pieced together by the revisers who produced the English Revised Version of 1881.
Indeed, Miller stated that when the issue was at all doubtful, he decided against the
Textus Receptus and that in the final tabulation he omitted many small instancesfavorable to the Textus Receptus (Ibid., pp. 94–122).

3

Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 114.

4

Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., p. 99.

5

Ibid., pp. 99–101.

140

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

brother" having virtually the same text as the Textus Receptus)1 wins out
3 to 2 over all the other variant readings.2 Moreover, if we consider only
the Greek and Latin Fathers (Syriac not included) who died prior to 400,
their quotations support the T.T. in 2,630 instances whereas 1,753
support the "Neologian".3 Thus Miller found that in the Fathers' citations
who died between 100 – 400 A.D., a span of 300 years, not only was the
T.T. in existence from the first – it was predominant!4
Hort's statement that none of the church Fathers before 350 quoted theT.T. is simply not true. As mentioned, even Origen occasionally cited andadopted purely Syrian readings. For example, Dr. E.F. Hills states thatin John 1–14 which is covered by Papyri 66 and 75, fifty-two times the
Syrian reading stands alone as to the text and Origen agreed with twentyof them.5 This may be quickly verified by merely scanning Tischendorf's
critical apparatus. Thus, the oft stated assertion of the critics that
Origen knew nothing of the Byzantine text is simply untenable. On thecontrary, these statistics demonstrate that Origen was not only familiar
with the Byzantine text, he frequently adopted its readings in preference
to those of the "Western" and "Alexandrian" texts. Hills goes on to reportthat seven of these same 20 occur in Papyri 66 and/or 75 (circa 200 A.D.).
Although Hort accused the Traditional Text as having late readings,
hence it must be a "late text", his own research revealed otherwise. In
his "Notes on Select Readings" which appears as an appendix in his
Introduction, Hort discussed about 240 instances of variation among themanuscripts of the Gospels.6 In only about twenty of these was he willingto characterize the Byzantine reading as "late". Thus, by Hort's own
admission, only around ten per cent of the Byzantine readings were
supposedly late. Scholars today offer even less.

1

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 191.

2

Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., pp. ix–x, 101.

3

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., pp. 67, 74. Pickering is citing
Edward Miller in: Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., pp. 99–101.

4

Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., p. 116.

5Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 172.

6

Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 1st ed., 1956, op. cit., p. 73. All otherreferences to The King James Version Defended within this publication except this andfn. 1 on page 33 are to his 1984 4th edition.

141

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

PAPYRI (c.200 A.D.) SUPPORTS THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS
The papyri (around 200 A.D.), which dates 150 years before Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus, support the Textus Receptus readings. This may come assomewhat of a shock to those familiar with the problem of textual
criticism, as most have been informed that the early papyri are listed as
Alexandrian or Western.
True, nevertheless the Chester Beatty andBodmer Papyri, even though placed in those families, have many
renderings which are strictly Syrian – strictly Textus Receptus. After athorough study of P46, Gunther Zuntz concluded: "A number of Byzantine
readings, most of them genuine, which previously were discarded as 'late',
Having several years earlier alreadyare anticipated by P46".1
acknowledged that with regard to the Byzantine New Testament "Most of
its readings existed in the second century",2 Colwell noted Zuntz's remark
and concurred.3 Many of these had been considered "late readings", but
the papyri testify that they date back at least to the second century!
In his recent book, the late (d.1989) Harry A. Sturz surveyed "all theavailable papyri" to determine how many papyrus-supported "Byzantine"
readings were extant. In deciding which readings were "distinctively
Byzantine", Dr. Sturz states that he made a conscious effort to "err on theconservative side" and thus his list is shorter than it could have been.
Sturz lists 150 Byzantine readings which, though not supported by theearly Alexandrian and Western uncials, are present in the bulk of latermanuscripts and by the early papyri.4 Sturz lists a further 170 additional
Byzantine readings which also read differently from the a-B text but are
1

Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, op. cit., p. 55.

2

Colwell, What is the Best New Testament?, op. cit., p. 70.

3

Colwell, "The Origin of Texttypes of New Testament Manuscripts", op. cit., p. 132.

4

Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type And New Testament Textual Criticism(Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1984), pp. 61–62, 145–159. For many years Chairman of
the Greek Department (contra the dust cover of his book) at Biola University, Dr. Sturz
studied New Testament textual criticism with E.C. Colwell. This work is a slightly
revised version of his doctoral dissertation at Grace Theological Seminary. Dr. Sturz
passed away 26 April, 1989. Dr. Theodore P. Letis, who was literally tutored privately at
the feet of Hills, states in a 7-20-88 critique of Sturz's book that Hills was the first text
critic to use the papyri to vindicate Burgon's argument that the Byzantine text reachedback well before the 4th-century. Letis relates that while a doctoral student under E.C.
Colwell at the University of Chicago in 1942, Hills proposed a dissertation topic which –had it been accepted – would have accomplished 25 years earlier that which Sturz set out
to do. The proposal was refused, hence Hills wrote his dissertation on another topic.

142

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

supported by Western manuscripts. These are also supported in theancient papyri. This support may seem minimal, but nothing candiminish the fact that the total number of papyri citations favor the socalled "late" Byzantine readings against their rivals in the two lists by
two to one.1 Sturz demonstrates papyri support for a total of 839
readings which in varying degrees would be classified as Byzantine. This
forever dismantles Hort's theory that the Byzantine text was created as
an official compromise text during the 4th-century by combining readings
from earlier text-types.
Hills declared that the Chester Beatty readings (pub. 1933–37; includes
P45 for Gospels & Acts, P46 – Pauline Epistles & P47 – Revelation)
vindicate "distinctive Syrian readings" twenty-six times in the Gospels,eight times in the Book of Acts, and thirty-one times in Paul's Epistles.2
Hills goes on to state that Papyrus Bodmer II (Pub. 1956-62; P66 has John
& P75 has Luke & John 1–15) confirms 13% of the so-called "late" Syrian
readings (18 out of 138).3 To properly appreciate this one must consider
the fact that only about 30% of the New Testament has any papyri
support, and much of that 30% has only one papyrus.4 Thus this is seen
as a major confirmation to the antiquity of the text of the Traditional
Text in direct contradiction to the theory previously outlined in which the
Syrian readings were said by W-H to be 4th or 5th century. May we notreasonably project that subsequent discoveries of papyri will give similar
support to readings now only extant in Byzantine text?
A most telling fact concerning the papyri is that several of them havetexts of Revelation (P-47 for example). How does the destructive critic
explain the fact that Vaticanus (written c.350) does not include the Book
of Revelation whereas the 1611 Authorized Version (written nearly 1,260
years later) contains this book? Can one reasonably explain how
Erasmus' "late" manuscripts contained an entire book missing in the"pure, neutral Vatican" text? How did Erasmus know that the book of
Revelation should be in the canon when the "oldest and best" manuscript
did not contain it?
1

Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, op. cit., p. 2.

2

John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark, (Ann Arbor,
MI: The Sovereign Grace Book Club, 1959), p. 50. This is a reprint of Burgon's 1871 work
containing an Introduction by Dr. Edward F. Hills, pp. 17–72.

3

Ibid., p. 54.

4

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 77.

143

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

ECCLESIASTIC REVISION?
Remember Westcott and Hort proposed that Lucian had been the leaderof an official ecclesiastical revision carried out by editors which had takenplace in two stages between 250 and 350 A.D. This recension supposedly
was for the purpose of producing an official compromise text "to resolve
the problems arising in the various provinces over the existence ofcompeting textual families" (Alexandrian, Western, and Neutral – seep. 125). The theory concluded that the Syrian (Byzantine) text was acomposite of these pre-existing texts resulting in readings that "elevated"
Jesus (which is what the Syrian/Textus Receptus readings do) as
compared with the others. Thus, the theory accused the Christians ofdeliberately altering the true text of the New Testament for the purposeof making Jesus appear more God-like, more divine.
The hard fact is there is not one mention of such an ecclesiastical revisionin all history.1 Indeed, the emphasis on this cornerstone of the W-Htheory has been abandoned by most present-day scholars. Colwellacknowledged this when he wrote:2"The universal and ruthless dominance of the middle ages by
one texttype is now recognized as a myth. ... [the] invaluablepioneer work of von Soden greatly weakened the dogma of thedominance of a homogeneous Syrian text. But the fallacy
received its death blow at the hands of Professor [Kirsopp] Lake.
... he annihilated the theory that the middle ages were ruled bya single recension which attained a high degree of uniformity".

Over 20 years earlier Kenyon had noted that there was no historicalevidence that the Traditional Text had been created by a conference ofancient scholars:3
1

And it is this conjecture that has been the basis for dating the codices. Convinced thatthe codex was invented by those involved in this "revision" which supposedly took place
during the persecution-free lull in the 2nd half of the 3rd century, for much of the 20th
century scholars concluded no codex could represent an older date. Yet writing c.A.D. 85,
the Roman poet Martial refers to the codex in Epigram I.2 – codices in N.T. times!
[Thiede, Eyewitness to Jesus, (N. Y.: Doubleday, 1996), pp. 103–105.] Papyrologists have
now pushed the origins of the codex back to the 1st century A.D., "not later than 70 A.D".
[Italo Gallo, Greek and Latin Papyrology, (London: 1986), p. 14 & cited by Thiede, p. 118.]

2

E.C. Colwell, "The Complex Character of the Late Byzantine Text of the Gospels",
Journal of Biblical Literature, LIV (1935): pp. 212–213.

3

Sir Frederick G. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 2nded., (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1951; original prt. 1912), p. 302. Kenyon
was Director of the British Museum & N.T. text critic.

144

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7"We know the names of several revisers of the Septuagint andthe Vulgate, and it would be strange if historians and Church
writers had all omitted to record or mention such an event as
the deliberate revision of the New Testament in its original
Greek".

With so much early Church history recorded both by Christian and by
secular sources, it is difficult to believe that such an important event as amajor revision of the Holy Writings could have taken place over such an
extended span of time without any mention having been recorded.
Furthermore, Lucian was an Arian1 – an outspoken one – and NEVER
would have favored readings exalting and deifying Jesus. The reality isthat the so-called "Syrian" readings are the true readings and others havesubtracted from them.
The ultimate triumph of the Textus Receptus began in the fourth century
as the great conflict with the Arian heresy brought orthodox Christianity
to a climax.2 This is when and why the Textus Receptus began tocompletely reassert its dominance over the rival erroneous manuscripts.
Finally, in the middle ages in every land there was a trend toward theorthodox "Syrian" text. However, ever since the days of Griesbach,naturalistic textual critics have tried to explain away this dominion of the
Textus Receptus readings by attributing its ascendancy to some monastic
piety3 whereby during the middle ages the monks in the Greek
monasteries invented4 the orthodox readings of the text and thenmultiplied copies until it finally achieved supremacy. Yet, as Hills
pointed out, if that were true the text would not have remained orthodox
because that kind of piety would have included such errors as Mary
worship and the worship of the saints, images and pictures.5 Dr. Hills
continues:
1

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 90. Yet despite this and theformer cited statements by Colwell concerning von Soden's and Lake's findings as well as
Kenyon's 1912 conclusion, as late as 1968 Bruce Metzger was still incredulously
continuing to perpetuate the W-H party line in affirming that the "Byzantine" text isbased on a recension most probably prepared by Lucian of Antioch (The Text of the New
Testament, op. cit., p. 212).

2

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 185.

3

Ibid., p. 188.

4

Or resurrected them from the Syrian readings which had resulted from the supposed"Lucian Recension".

5

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 188.

145

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7"But as a matter of fact, no such heretical readings occur in the
Traditional Text".1

The "majority" manuscripts agree with one another closely enough tojustify the contention that they all contain essentially the same text but
not so closely as to give any grounds to the belief that this uniformity oftext was produced: (1) by the labors of editors, (2) from some decree by an
ecclesiastical leader, or (3) from mass production on the part of somescribes at any one place at any one time.2 If the Traditional Text were alate development as proposed by the W-H Theory, how could it socompletely displace an earlier and better text already in use by the
church? All explanations offered to date, as we have noted, are totallylacking in substance and fact.
We have already seen that, contrary to the theory of Westcott and Hort,
there was no ecclesiastical revision ordered by the church. The lateconservative Christian text critic, Edward Freer Hills, attests that the
scribes who produced the Western text regarded themselves more asinterpreters rather than copyists hence they made bold alterations
consisting principally of numerous additions to the Scriptures.3 The
Alexandrian text makers (which includes the so-called "Neutral" text
family) conceived of themselves as being grammarians; thus their chief
aim was to improve the style of the text.4 They made a few additionsindeed but primarily removed Scripture and also shortened the readings.
It has already been shown that the Westcott-Hort critical theory is
fallacious in every proposition. Indeed, nearly all modern critics agree
that the so-called "Lucianic Recension" (see p. 126) was Hort's invention.
The significance of the failure of this canon of the W-H theory cannot be
over-stressed as the following quotes illustrate. Regarding the W-H text,
K.W. Clark writes: "The textual history postulated for the textus receptus
which we now trust has been exploded".5 Eldon J. Epp correctly states:
1

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 189.

2

Ibid., pp. 182–183.

3

Ibid., pp. 183–184.

4

Ibid.

5

K.W. Clark, "Today's Problems with the Critical Text of the New Testament", Transitions
in Biblical Scholarship, ed. J.C.R. Rylaarsdam, (Chicago: Uni. of Chicago Press, 1968),
p. 162. The credit for the devastating summarizing rebuttal in this paragraph rightly
belongs to the peerless efforts of Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering (see "conclusion" to ch. four:
Identity, op. cit., pp. 91–92).

146

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7"the establishment of the NT text can be achieved only by areconstruction of the history of that early text ..."1 Epp then confesses:"we simply do not have a theory of the text".2 Colwell adds his confirming
voice: "Without a knowledge of the history of the text, the original
reading cannot be established".3 Aland acknowledges: "Now as in thepast, textual criticism without a history of the text is not possible".4 Horthimself stated the very same:5"All trustworthy restoration of corrupted texts
is founded on the study of their history."

Knowing this, Hort invented a history of the text which he and manyothers have since followed. And remember, it has already been noted (seepage 127) that one of the fundamental deficiencies of the eclectic methodof textual criticism is that it ignores the history of the text! Then where
does all of this leave modern criticism? K.W. Clark correctly states thedismal situation:
6"The textual history that the Westcott-Hort text represents is
no longer tenable in the light of newer discoveries and fuller
textual analysis. In the effort to construct a congruent history,
our failure suggests that we have lost the way, that we havereached a dead end, and that only a new and different insightwill enable us to break through". (author's emphasis)

These candid admissions by such renown scholars from the opposing
viewpoint who have been at the forefront of the controversy are
remarkable, yet their disciples and other pundits continue on along muchthe same paths seemingly unaware of the significance of that which theircolleagues have conceded. Of course as Hort's theory was never tenable
in the first place, Clark's frank incredulous admission is what the present
1Epp, "The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism", op. cit.,p. 401.

2

Ibid., p. 403.

3

E.C. Colwell, "The Greek New Testament with a Limited Critical Apparatus: its Natureand Uses", Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, ed. D. E. Aune,(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), p. 37. This theme pervades Colwell's "Hort Redivivus".

4

Kurt Aland, "The Present Position of New Testament Textual Criticism", Studia
Evangelica, ed. F. L. Cross et al., (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1959), p. 731.

5

Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 40.

6

Clark, "Today's Problems", op. cit., p. 161.

147

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

author (along with Burgon, Miller, Scrivener, Nolan, Hills, Fuller,
Pickering, Waite, Letis, etc.) has been maintaining all along. Clark's
needed "new insight" is actually no more than a return to the "logic offaith"1 and trusting in God's promise that He would forever preserve His
Word and to see that throughout history He has so done through theReformation text as Nolan's research concluded. This last point shall beenlarged upon presently.

GAIUS, THOUGH LONG DEAD, SPEAKS
Gaius was an orthodox "Father" writing near the end of the 2nd-century(c.175–200 A.D.). Gaius named four heretics who altered text and had
disciples copying them.2 He charged that they could not deny their guilt
because the copies in question were their own handiwork and that they
were unable to produce the originals from which they had made theircopies. As Pickering observed, this would have been a hollow accusationfrom Gaius if he could not have produced the Originals either!3 Hence, itfollows that the Originals were still available at the end of the second
century.
Polycarp (69 – 155 A.D.) was a pupil of John the Apostle. It is very likelythat he had originals, at least the ones John wrote. He also would have
had some very near originals of the rest of the New Testament which hewould have obtained from his teacher, John. Moreover, Polycarp would
have had them at the time of his death in 155 A.D. Thus, around 175 to
200 Gaius must have had access to them also. Since the papyri prove the
Syrian readings are at least second century, how could the original
Syrian have gained dominance over the other text types (Neutral,
Alexandrian, Western) if they had been corrupted when appeal to the
autographs could have been made at that date? The whole W-H Theory,
as well as its modern counterpart, is thereby clearly exposed and seen as
vacuous and fallacious – "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
The only ancient, historical, authoritative revisions were those which
occurred when Constantine commissioned Eusebius to produce fifty
Bibles for him to place in the hands of the Bishops of the larger Churches
1

Hills, Believing Bible Study, op. cit., pp. 36–37.

2

Burgon, The Revision Revised, op. cit., pp. 323–324.

3

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., pp. 109–110.

148

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

in his realm and that of Jerome for Pope Damasus. Thus the recension
spoken of by the text critics was not in the days of Lucian but nearly 150
years earlier when Eusebius (and later, Jerome) chose Origen's workfrom the library at Caesarea as his text for both Testaments.

THE ARTIFICIAL NATURE OF TEXT FAMILIES
1
DEMONSTRATEDWe are constantly being assured by church leaders and scholars that allthat is being done to restore the original readings is being done according
to well established, and therefore trustworthy, scientific principles – thescience of textual criticism.
Having examined the methods andconclusions of those of the Westcott-Hort and the Eclectic schools of
textual criticism, this author concludes that such is not science.2
For example, in Mark 5–16, Epp records that the Uncial Codex W showsa 34 percent agreement with B, 36 percent with D, 38 percent with theTR, and 40 percent with Aleph.3 As Pickering correctly asks: "To which'textual stream' should W then be assigned?"4 Yet Codex W has been
given a family assignment. Is not any such assignment clearly a matterof conjecture as well as a convenience in order to support a preconceived
tenet?
1

The material from this point through page 153 has been adapted and compiled by leaning
most heavily on Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity Of The New Testament Text, op.
cit., pp. 55–57.

2

Having had a 14-year professional vocation during which he held varying positions ofresponsibility as Paleontologist, Geophysicist, District Geophysicist, GeophysicalManager, and Regional Geophysicist with Texaco and Tenneco respectively, the author isqualified to make such a judgment. Shortly before resigning from his scientific career in1974 to pursue Biblical studies, he was selected to attend Division Manager School.
Attaining the Ph.D. as well as a Th.D., Dr. Jones has garnered majors in the disciplinesof Geology, Chemistry, Mathematics, Theology, and Education from six institutions ofhigher learning. A magna cum laude graduate and an ex-evolutionist, he also possesses a
minor in Physics and is an ordained Minister (SBC).
Dr. Jones twice served as adjunct Professor at Continental Bible College in Brussels,
Belgium. In addition to several books in defense of the traditional biblical text, he has
authored a definitive work on Bible chronology and an extensive analytical red-letter
harmony of the Gospels. A best-selling author, he is currently engaged in ongoing biblicalresearch and the teaching of God's infallible Word.

3

Epp, "The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism", op. cit., pp.
394–396.

4

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 55.

149

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

Furthermore, both P-66 and P-75 have been generally endorsed as
belonging to the "Alexandrian text-type".1 A.F.J. Klijn catalogs theresults of a comparison of a, B, P-45, P-66, and P-75 in the passages
where they are all extant (i.e., John 10:7–25, 10:32–11:10, 11:19–33 and11:43–56).2
He considered only those places where a and B disagree and where atleast one of the papyri joins either a or B. Klijn stated the result for the
43 places as follows (to which we have added figures for the Textus
Receptus as given on p. 55 in and by Pickering.):

Number of Agreements with:
Textus Receptus
Aleph
B
P-45
19
24
32
P-66
14
29
33
P-75
9
33
29
P-45,66,75
4
18
20
P-45,66
7
3
8
P-45,75
1
2
2
P-66,7508
5Is the summary assignment of P-66 and P-75 to the "Alexandrian texttype" entirely reasonable? Is this "science", factual, or truthful?
Moreover, Gordon D. Fee goes to considerable lengths in interpreting theevidence in such a way as to support his conclusion that "P-66 is basicallya member of the Neutral tradition",3 but the evidence itself as he records
it (for John chapters 1–14) is:4

1

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 55.

2

Klijn, A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text, op. cit., pp. 45–48.

3

Gordon D. Fee, Papyrus Bodmer II (P66): Its Textual Relationships and Scribal
Characteristics, (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1968), p. 56.

4Ibid., p. 14.

150

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

P-66
Number of
Total
Percent of
Agrees with
Agreements Comparisons Agreement
Textus Receptus
315
663
47.5%
P-75
280
547
51.2%
B
334
663
50.4%
Aleph
295
662
44.6%
A
245
537
45.6%
C
150
309
48.5%
D
235
604
38.9%
W
298
662
45.0%
Does a comparison of this data really suggest "two clear textual streams"?
Many other examples could be cited, however the point has been plainly
demonstrated. The whole purpose of applying the genealogical or family
tree techniques to the Bible manuscripts was to reduce the vast majorityof witnesses of the text of the New Testament to that of only one voice.
Such in and of itself was wicked enough for us to endure, for in order tojustify applying these techniques the position had to be taken that the
New Testament could be treated like any other book, that it was not of asupernatural origin. But now we see wickedness added to wickedness, forunder the guise of "scientific methods" a system has been imposed upon
the material; which system is now exposed as artificial, totally subjective,
contrived, and synthetic – SHAME!
Pickering has given the following estimates:
100% of the MSS/mss agree to 80% of the text
99% of the MSS/mss agree to 10% of the remaining 20%
95%+ of the MSS/mss agree to 4% of the remaining 10%90%+ of the MSS/mss agree to 3% of the remaining 6%
A perusal of the foregoing reveals that around 90% of the extant
manuscripts belong to the Traditional text-type. This strongly argues
that such domination can best and most logically be explained byrecognizing that this demonstrates the text goes back to the autographs.1
Again, Hort correctly saw the magnitude this problem posed against histhesis so he invented the Lucianic revision.
1

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 112.

151

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

As Pickering observed, Sturz apparently did not perceive the significanceof the argument presented by the vast statistical preponderance ofevidence in favor of the "Byzantine text-type".1 After demonstrating thatthe "Byzantine" is both early and independent of the "Western" and"Alexandrian text-types", Sturz – like von Soden – concluded that theyshould be treated as three equal witnesses.2 This completely misses thepoint which is that if the three "text-types" were equal, how could the socalled "Byzantine" type obtain a near 90% preponderance since it has
been shown (and Sturz agrees, his p. 62) that no 4th century official
revision at Antioch ever took place?
Again, since academia now generally acknowledges that the "Byzantine
text-type" must date back to at least the 2nd-century, how could theoriginal "Byzantine" document have been "created" by editors using othercompeting texts such that the resulting "conflated" (combined) text could
gain ascendancy when appeal to the autographs was still possible at thattime.
Thus only less than 3% of the text does not agree with 90% of the MSS.3
Furthermore, we are not judging between two text forms of, say 90%
versus 10%. As the minority disagree among themselves (Only P-75
and B agree closely4), the percentage is more like 90% versus 1%. For
example, in I Tim. 3:16 which the King James renders as:
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh, ...

Over 300 mss read "God was manifest", only 8 mss say something else; ofthose 8, five say "who" instead of "God" and three have privateinterpretations – which is 97% versus 2%. Yet, since Westcott and Hort,
critics have adopted the Alexandrian reading "who was manifest in theflesh" as preserved in Aleph and then rendered the word "who" as "Hewho", all the while insisting that Paul is quoting here from a fragment of1

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 112.

2

Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type, op. cit., p. 64.

3

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 112.

4

But P-75 cannot be regarded as a guarantee that B's text is of the 2nd century. It is
unjustified to conclude from the agreements between P-75 and B in portions of Luke andJohn that the whole N.T. text of B is reliable. There also exists a sufficient number ofdisagreements between the two which must be deemed as important as the agreements.

152

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

an early Christian Hymn.1 Thus, according to the critics, Paul quoted anincomplete sentence, one having a subject without a predicate and eventhat has been left dangling.2 I think not!
According to the 500 page study by Hoskier which detailed and discussed
the errors in Codex B and another 400 on the idiosyncrasies of Codex
Aleph, Sinaiticus Aleph and Vaticanus B were found to differ from eachother in the Gospels alone about 3,036 times – not including minor errors
such as spelling or synonym departures.3 Their agreements are even
FEWER – and these two manuscripts are "the best and most reliable"?
Considering all the preceding data given in this section, one is left towonder if rational, logical, intelligent life has yet arrived on planet earth.
The 1881 Revision Committee made between eight and nine changes
every five verses. In about every ten verses, three of those changes weremade for "critical purposes".4 In so doing, their justification was almost
exclusively the authority of only two manuscripts, Vaticanus B and
Sinaiticus a. The testimony of Vaticanus B alone is responsible for 90%of the most striking innovations in the Revised Version.5

ERASMUS VINDICATED
We are constantly being told that Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus a are theoldest extant Greek manuscripts, hence the most reliable and best; thatthey are in fact the Bible. The New Greek text which has replaced the
Textus Receptus in the minds of the vast majority of the scholars
represents the private enterprise of two men, two very religious albeit
unregenerate men, Westcott and Hort. These men based their work
almost completely on Origen's fifth column for their Old Testament andhis edited New Testament. Their New Testament readings are almost
exclusively derived from only five manuscripts, principally from only one.

1

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 138.

2

Ibid.

3

Herman C. Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, A Study and an Indictment, 2 Vols., (London:
Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1914), Vol. II, p. 1.

4Charles John Ellicott, Submission of Revised Version to Convocation, (1881), p. 27.
Bishop Ellicott chaired the 1881 Committee.

5Frederick Charles Cook, The Revised Version of the First Three Gospels, (London: Murray,
1882), pp. 227, 231.

153

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7"B" supplies almost ninety percent of the text for all the new Greek
versions upon which the new translations are based. In other words, theyuse one manuscript to the exclusion of nearly all others! Seven percent isfrom Sinaiticus a, almost three percent from Alexandrinus A, a portion
from Uncial D (which is extremely corrupt), and the small remainderfrom Codex L and a few other manuscripts.1 For the most part, this is as
close as the destructive critics have thus far come to "recovering" theoriginal text. Hence, the Scriptures are seen as being in somewhat of astate of "evolution" by those who reject the fact of God's having preserved
His Word for its constant availability and use by the body of believers as
He indicated He would do.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the manof God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
(II Tim.3:16–17)

Thus the very same fault for which the critics have derided Erasmus sorelentlessly over the years – that he only used five late manuscripts2 – isfar more true of their own modern rendition of the Greek New Testament.
Remember, their charge is not completely justifiable concerning Erasmus
for he actually had ten mss at his disposal in Basle, and one of them hedeemed very old (p. 53). Further, he had studied several hundred Greek
manuscripts and prepared notes on the variant readings found therein.3
And yet Westcott and Hort basically used only five, in fact, almost only
one manuscript! Indeed, for the most part the same may be said for theirmodern eclectic counterparts. As Burgon rightly perceived:4"... the whole of the controversy may be reduced to the … narrowissue: Does the truth of the Text of Scripture dwell in the vast
multitude of copies, uncials, and cursive … or is it … to besupposed that the truth abides exclusively with a very little
handful of manuscripts which … differ from the great bulk of
the witnesses and, – strange to say – also amongst themselves?"
1

Unfortunately, this reference has been misplaced, but the percentages given are accurate
and well attested.

2

Stephens and Elzevir used c.twenty to twenty-five manuscripts plus Erasmus' edition inbringing the TR into its final form.

3

Nolan, An Inquiry, op. cit., p. 413; Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit.,
p. 198.

4

Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., pp. 16–17.

154Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

ARE THE OLDEST MSS THE BEST?
But are not the oldest manuscripts the best – the most reliable?
course, as Burgon attested, this would normally be true:

Of"The more ancient testimony is probably the better testimony.
That it is not by any means always so is a familiar fact. ... But it
remains true, notwithstanding, that until evidence has been
produced to the contrary in any particular instance, the moreancient of two witnesses may reasonably be presumed to be the1better informed witness".

However, we have earlier demonstrated from Scripture that this is notnecessarily true with regard to the text of the N.T.2 Furthermore, theactual contrary evidence says that most of the variant readings found in
the Greek manuscripts were introduced by A.D. 200. Text critics
themselves generally concede this, thus we find Scrivener writing: "It is
no less true than paradoxical in sound that the worst corruptions towhich the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within ahundred years after it was composed".3 Over half-a-century later Colwellagreed declaring: "The overwhelming majority of readings were created
before the year 200"4 and Zuntz followed suit in stating: "Modern
criticism stops before the barrier of the second century; the age, so it
seems, of unbounded liberties with the text".5
Finally, G.D. Kilpatrick – an ardent eclecticist – contends that "asdistinct from errors, most deliberate changes, if not all were made by A.D.
200".6 Kilpatrick then argues that the reason the creation of newvariants ceased by around 200 was that by that time it became
impossible to "sell" them. He next cites attempts by Origen to introduce

1

Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., p. 40.

2

II Corinthians 2:17; 4:2; II Peter 3:16, see p. 14.

3

F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., ed.
Edward Miller, 2 Vols., (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), Vol. II, p. 264; see
Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., pp. 108–109.

4

Colwell, "The Origin of Texttypes of New Testament Manuscripts", op. cit., p. 138.

5

Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, op. cit., p. 11.

6

G.D. Kilpatrick, "Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament", Neutestamentliche
Aufsatze (Regensburg: Verlag Freiderich Pustet, 1963), pp. 128–131.

155

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7changes into the text and notes the dismal reception with which they
were met:1"These two examples of alteration to the text of the New
Testament after A.D. 200 show how uncommon such changes
were in the later period. ... There can be no question that theearlier ones are far and away more in number. Origen's
treatment of Mt. 19:19 is significant in two other ways. First he
was probably the most influential commentator of the Ancient
Church and yet his conjecture at this point seems to haveinfluenced only one manuscript of a local version of the New
Testament. The Greek tradition is apparently quite unaffectedby it. From the third century onward even an Origen could noteffectively alter the text. This brings us to the second significant
point – his date. From the early third century onward thefreedom to alter the text ... can no longer be practiced. Tatian is
the last author to make deliberate changes in the text of whom
we have explicit information. Between Tatian and Origen
Christian opinion had so changed that it was no longer possible
to make changes in the text whether they were harmless or not".
(until our day – author)

Kilpatrick completes this aspect of his article saying:2"... by the end of the second century A.D. Christian opinion had
hardened against deliberate alteration of the text, however
harmless the alteration might be. The change of opinion was ...
with the reaction against the rehandling of the text by thesecond century heretics. This argument confirms the opinion of
H. Vogels ... that the vast majority of deliberate changes in the
New Testament text were older than A.D. 200. In other words
they came into being in the period A.D. 50–200".

Thus most of the deliberate changes had been injected into the text andthe creation of new variants had ceased by the year A.D. 200 with almost
no further damage being incurred thereafter. From this and other data,
Sturz rightly concluded that the readings of the Byzantine text were old
as they, like those of the other so-called text-types, demonstrably go backdeep into the 2nd-century.3
1

Kilpatrick, "Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament", pp. 129–130.

2

Ibid., p. 131.

3

Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type, op. cit., p. 97.

156

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

Thus Burgon's "contrary evidence" has been produced such that thepresupposition in favor of antiquity is nullified – both by the known
existence of a variety of maliciously altered texts, especially during the
2nd-century, and the testimony of Scripture as noted.
It is common knowledge that the minority MSS,1 those upon which thecritical texts2 are based, used papyri or parchment which came only from
Alexandria Egypt.3 The question is – is it prudent to follow the witness of
only one locale? Is it reasonable that an original reading should survive
in only one region? In contrast, the majority TR text is composed of mssfrom Greece, Asia Minor, Constantinople, Syria, Africa, Gaul, Southern
Italy, Sicily, England and Ireland. Alexandria had no original N.T.
autographs. Hence areas such as Rome, Greece, Asia Minor andPalestine had a better start than did Egypt to have the true Holy Text.4
It is unwise for present day translators to base their modern versions on
recent papyri discoveries, Vaticanus B, and Sinaiticus a because all ofthese documents came out of Egypt.5 During the early Christiancenturies Egypt was a land in which heresies were rampant. Indeed,
Hills reports that the texts of all the Bodmer Papyri are error-ridden andhave been tampered with, in part by Gnostic heretics.6 The same is trueof the texts of Papyrus 75, B, and Aleph.7
Burgon and Miller pointed out this Gnostic trait in B and a back in 1896,8
and their observations have yet to be refuted. Burgon named theinfamous Gnostic teacher, Valentinus (fl. A.D. 150) as the source of someof the corruptions.9 There was even a heretical character of the early1Beatty, Bodmer and Uncials, such as B, Aleph, A, H and W.

2

By "critical texts" is meant such entities as Nestle's text, UBS, the modern Eclectic text,
the Westcott-Hort text, etc.

3

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., pp. 116–117.

4

Ibid., p. 105.

5Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 134.

6

Hills, Believing Bible Study, op. cit., p. 78.

7

Ibid., p. 77.

8

Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., pp. 287–291.

9John W. Burgon, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels,ed. Edward Miller, (London: George Bell and Sons, 1896), pp. 215–218.

157

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

Egyptian church;1 hence it is not surprising that the MSS from Egypt
were sprinkled with heretical readings.
We shall now quote some liberal modern scholars with reference to someof the oldest witnesses so that we may ascertain the character of thesewitnesses. Remember the issue is – are not the oldest manuscripts the
best? Again, Scripture indicates such is not necessarily true. We shallrefer to these papyri as though they were men; in other words, the scribes
who wrote them. Let us now consider some of the older material:
P66 editorializes (meaning to change the material and substitute the editor's
thoughts); it is very poor and sloppy according to E.C. Colwell.2 Hereports nearly 200 nonsensical readings and 400 mistaken spellings.
P75 is not as bad as P-66 but Colwell affirms3 there are over 400 mistakes
which include about 145 misspellings and 257 singular readings of which
25% are nonsensical.
4

P45 has 90 misspellings and 245 singular readings of which 10% make nosense. As an editor, P-45 is concise but he omits adjectives, adverbs,
nouns, participles, verbs, personal pronouns and frequently clauses andphrases. At least 50 times he shortens the text into singular readings.

Clearly, P45 did not believe he had the Word of God before him or hewould have been more circumspect. Colwell says P-45 tried to produce a"good" copy. Perhaps, if "good" means "readable" but not "faithful". As
Colwell acknowledged, P45 made many deliberate alterations.
P46 according to Gunter Zuntz,5 is neat and copied by a professional, but it
abounds in scribal blunders, omissions and additions.
6

P47 is not the best text the Book of Revelation states Kurt Aland: "... theoldest manuscript does not necessarily have the best text. P-47 is, forexample by far the oldest of the manuscripts containing the full or almost
full text of the Apocalypse, but it is certainly not the best".
1

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 134.

2

Colwell, "Scribal Habits in Early Papyri", pp. 387, 378–379; see Pickering, The Identity of
the New Testament Text, op. cit., pp. 117–120 for an excellent more detailed summary.

3

Ibid., pp. 374–376.

4

Ibid.

5

Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, op. cit., pp. 18, 212.

6

Aland, "The Significance of the Papyri", op. cit., p. 333.

158

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

The point being demonstrated here is that the oldest is not necessarily
the best. These are all second and third century papyri, which are 100 to
200 years older than Vaticanus B or Sinaiticus a and much later thanmost of the material used by Erasmus. Age alone cannot insure accuracy
as we would still not know how old the "parent" mss was when it "gavebirth" to its offspring. For example, an 8th century document may havebeen copied from a 6th century parent mss, whereas a fourteenth century
mss could have been the offspring of a 2nd century manuscript.
The critics Kirsopp Lake, R.P. Blake, and Silva New found mostly"orphans" among the manuscripts which they collated.1 That is, thescribes of the New Testament usually destroyed their old copies after
recopying them resulting in almost no ancient "parents" surviving unto
the present. Not only are nearly all of the extant manuscripts thusorphans, they found almost no siblings. Each manuscript was an only
child without brothers or sisters.
The significance of this cannot be overstated. This means that theauthors were independent witnesses; that hardly any were copied fromothers – thus, no collusion or wholesale fraud exists!2 There was noecclesiastical committee forcing people to copy them; therefore they
deserve to be counted as independent witnesses. Furthermore, as
Pickering observed, the findings of these three critics attests to anotherconsideration: "the age of a manuscript must not be confused with the ageof the text it exhibits".3

TO WEIGH THE WITNESSES OR TO JUST COUNT THEM?
One may reply, "Should not witnesses be weighed rather than merely
counted?" The problem with this statement is it infers that weighing andcounting are mutually exclusive.4 If we, as the text critics, are trying torestore the Bible, we should do both. In a courtroom with ten witnesses
testifying, if nine say they saw the event take place and the man is guilty
whereas only one says he is not, what would be the result? The voice of1

Kirsopp Lake, R. P. Blake and Silva New, "The Caesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark",
op. cit., p. 349.

2

Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., pp. 46–47.

3

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 124.

4

Ibid., pp. 124–125.

159

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

the nine would carry the day. Nevertheless, witnesses should be weighed
also, for it is possible that all nine could be persons of ill repute and theone of impeccable character.
Actually, all text critics "count" manuscripts. The great majority of the
N.T. wording is absolutely completely established because there are no
variants. That is, not only the majority but in all of the manuscripts
nearly every word reads the same. Hence, even its detractors follow the"majority text" most of the time. Furthermore, modern editors such as
von Soden, Harry Sturz and Weymouth say when two of the majorfamilies (or in Weymouth's case, two or more printed editions) agree
against one of the other families (or editions) the majority (or two inagreement) should be followed.1
As previously mentioned, Hort and others since him weighed thewitnesses based on internal evidence, habitually utilizing "intrinsic" and"transcriptional" probability as their guides. That is, they chose thereadings which they deemed best fit the context and best explained theorigin of the other reading (of 2 or more possibilities) which had resulted
from successive stages of copying. However, these two often cancel eachother and, besides, they are far too subjective such that the word "weigh"becomes meaningless and the concept a mockery.
It has been documented on page 155 that "the worst corruptions to which
the New Testament text has ever been subjected originated within ahundred years after it was composed".2 Burgon adds:3"Therefore antiquity alone affords no security that themanuscript in our hands is not infected with the corruption
which sprang up largely in the first and second centuries. That
witnesses are to be weighed – not counted – may be said toembody much fundamental fallacy.
It assumes that thewitnesses we possess are capable of being weighed and thatevery critic is competent to weigh them, neither of which
proposition is true".

However, the true text of the New Testament can be found easily andwith certainty – as we shall demonstrate.
1

The material in this paragraph is taken from a 1988 correspondence to the author by Dr.
Theodore P. Letis.

2

Scrivener, A Plain Introduction, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 264.

3

Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., pp. 40, 43.

160

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

HOW TO EVALUATE THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS

1

How do we evaluate the credibility of a witness in every day life? Byobserving his actions, what he says and how he says it, listening to theopinions of his neighbors and associates and by observing the samethings in his associates. Check out his associates. In other words, does
he run with a bad crowd? If it can be demonstrated that he is a habitualliar, morally depraved or that his critical faculties are impaired, then his
testimony should be received with skepticism.
Now let us weigh, for example, P-66 as a witness to the true text of the
New Testament. He is old, but in John's Gospel he has over nine
hundred clear errors concerning the text. He has lied to us over 900
times! Moreover, Pickering contends that neither P-66 nor P-75 knew
Greek.2 Is he thus a credible witness? No! Someone protests – but he is"old". True enough, but he is an old liar!
As we have seen P-45, according to Colwell, made numerous deliberatechanges in the text. Is he not morally impaired? He has repeatedly lied
to us. Can we still trust him?
Between them, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus a have lied over 3,000 times
in just the Gospels alone! According to Hoskier, when compared with thetrue reading of the Textus Receptus, between them there are 656
differences in Matthew, 567 in Mark, 791 in Luke and 1,022 in John – a
total of 3,036.3 Now a is a bigger liar than B. Everyone agrees to that. If
a is, let us say, a two to one bigger liar than B, then a thousand of thoselies belong to Vaticanus B and 2,000 to Sinaiticus a. Are B and a reliable
witnesses?
If we cannot determine objectively that a particular witness is lying, his
credibility suffers if he keeps dubious company. Examples of "bad"company are the "five old Uncials" (a, A, B, C, D) which often readdifferently from the TR and also disagree among themselves.4
1

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., pp. 125–127. Freely "stolen"
from Pickering as he is very incisive here.

2

Ibid., p. 126.

3

Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 1.

4

Burgon, The Revision Revised, op. cit., pp. 16–18, 30–31; Burgon, The Traditional Text,
op. cit., p. 84.

161

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

And what about character witnesses? For the most part, a and B were
not copied by the church. That being true, it follows that the early church
must have rejected their form of text.1 Hence, in their day they simply
were not respected by the true believers, and that speaks ill of them.
2

WEIGH, BUT THEN COUNT

If we are attempting to restore the Scriptures, then after the witnesses
have been weighed, they must be counted. However, before doing so
prudence would demand that we examine to determine possible collusion
between the witnesses. Those mutually dependent must be lumped
together as only one voice. Westcott and Hort were right in maintaining
the correctness of that axiom. Only then should each witness appearing
to be both independent and trustworthy have a vote. If several hundred
such witnesses agree against three or four inveterate liars, can any doubt
really exist as to the true reading? If a manuscript goes wrong
continually, as a witness he is of low character. Again, the oldest extant
uncial manuscripts, when viewed objectively, habitually are shown to beliars.3
For example, in the last three chapters of Luke (22–24) Codex D omits
329 words from what Westcott and Hort considered to be the true text.
In addition, Codex D was judged to have added 173 words, substituted
146 words and made 243 transpositions to the Received Text by thesesame men. Yet in eight places they omitted material from the text of the
Textus Receptus based solely on the witness of Codex D. As Pickering
exclaimed, how can any value be given to the depraved testimony ofCodex D in these chapters, much less prefer it above the united voice of
all other witnesses?4

1

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 127.

2

Ibid., pp. 127, 134–137. Again Pickering is heavily leaned upon. See Burgon's criteria or"Seven Notes of Truth" which he advocated in determining the identity of the N.T. text:
The Traditional Text, op. cit., p. 29.

3

Burgon, The Revision Revised, op. cit., pp. 16–18, 30–31; Burgon, The Traditional Text,
op. cit., p. 84. Also Hoskier, Codex B And Its Allies, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 1, etc.

4

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 136. In the Gospels alone,
Codex D omits no less than 3,704 words, adds to the genuine Text 2,213, substitutes
2,121, transposes 3,471, and modifies 1,772 for a total of 13,281 deflections from theReceived Text: Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., p. 176.

162

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

The focus here is not as much on Codex D as it is on the men, Westcottand Hort. They selected readings from an area in a MS which they
acknowledged as having been heavily altered and yet chose them in eightplaces in those three chapters because they liked how D read. This showsthat textual criticism, by utilizing subjective methods, has been reduced
to nothing more than the intellect of the scholar and his personal views.
Modern texts are based 90% on Vaticanus B, 7% on a, about 2.5% on
Alexandrinus A and the remaining ½% on a few other early MSS.
Convicted liars all! Textual critics have ignored the consideration ofrespectability as an objective and very necessary criterion in weighing.1
However, if respectability is considered and implemented, the result willbe the complete overthrow of the type text currently in vogue and returnus to the Textus Receptus.

THE IMPORTANCE OF VARIETY IN SELECTING
2
EVIDENCE
The use of a variety of evidence will support the Textus Receptus, returnthe body of Christ to it as its final source of authority, and return to the
Church absolute confidence that we still possess the God inspired,infallible Word – that He has preserved it for His followers as He
promised. It must be seen that to believe in the inspiration of the Holy
Writ without believing in its preservation within the believing remnantof the church is meaningless.
By "variety" is meant that evidence would come from:3(1) many theological and geographical areas rather than from Egypt alone.
(2) materials that differ in age. In order for a reading to be a serious
candidate for the original text, it would have to have attestation down
through the ages of transmission. In other words, there should beconsistent traces of its existence through the years.
(3) different kinds of witnesses. Consideration should be given to all
available evidence, i.e., not only Greek manuscripts but to data from thechurch "Fathers", lectionaries and different old versions.
1

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 135.

2

Ibid., pp. 132–133. This is another of Burgon's "Seven Notes of Truth"; see: The
Traditional Text, op. cit., pp. 29, 49–52.

3

Ibid., pp. 132, 134.

163

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

When these are objectively weighed and counted, the Textus Receptus will
be vindicated – as will the King James Bible, which is the God guided
faithful English rendering. Finally:

ANCIENT TRANSLATIONS SUPPORT THE RECEIVEDTEXT
From the second and early third centuries, Latin (the original Latin"Vulgate") and Syriac New Testaments circulated all over Asia Minor,
Africa, and Palestine. These Bibles were revised respectively by Jerome(382–405 A.D.) and presumably Bishop Rabbula (411–435). Where they
followed the corrupt Alexandrian (Hesychian) scholarship of Origen(c.245) in editing they disfigured the New Testament text. Errors in thePeshitta and in the Vulgate can be traced to the Vatican (B) manuscript
and its ancestors.
The Peshitta Syriac version is the historic Bible of the whole Syrian
Church. It agrees closely with the Traditional Text. Until around one
hundred years ago it was almost universally accepted as having
originated in the 2nd-century, thus being one of the most ancient N.T.
versions.1 Because the Syriac Peshitta text is "Byzantine", Hort had tonullify its witness by denying its antiquity. This he did by placing its
inception out of the second and third centuries. Accordingly, He proposedthat its origin was connected to the so-called "Lucianic Recension" in the
4th-century.2 Burgon pointed out that there was a total lack of evidence
for Hort's assertion.3 Hills recounts that F.C. Burkitt (1904) pressed
Hort's theory even further by naming Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa – thecapital city of Syria, as the author of the revision.4
However, Arthur Voobus countered Hort, Burkitt, and other naturalistic
critics by – like Burgon – first noting that their reconstruction of textual
history was "pure fiction without a shred of evidence to support it".5 After
1

Hills, King James Version Defended, op. cit., pp. 172–174. "Peshitta" means simple, easy
to understand; referred to here in its original form before it was subsequently altered.

2

Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., pp. 136–137.

3

Burgon, The Revision Revised, op. cit., pp. 275–277.

4Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 172.

5

Arthur Voobus, Early Versions of the New Testament, Manuscript Studies, (Stockholm:
Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 1954), pp. 100–102.

164

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

concluding that Rabbula used the Old Syriac type of text, Voobus judged
from his research that the Peshitta went back to at least the mid-fourth
century and that it was not the result of an authoritative revision. Yet it
is Burgon who long before noted a deciding historical difficulty for the"Hort-Burkitt" theory. He pointed out that the Peshitta had to have been
in existence before Rabbula's episcopate because during his time a schism
occurred in which the Syrian Church became divided into two sects, theNestorians and the Monophysites. Since Rabbula was the leader of theMonophysites and a "determined opponent of the Nestorians" it becomes
impossible to maintain that he produced the Peshitta. Had it been
framed under his auspices his rivals would never have adopted "soquickly and so unanimously the handiwork of their greatest adversary"as their received New Testament text.1 Hills sums the argument against
Burkitt:2"Why was it that the Peshitta was received by all the mutually
opposing groups in the Syrian Church as their common,
authoritative Bible? It must have been that the Peshitta was avery ancient version and that because it was so old the common
people within the Syrian Church continued to be loyal to it
regardless of the factions into which they came to be divided andthe preferences of their leaders".

In light of all the preceding, this author – like Dr. Pickering – finds it
difficult to understand how F.F. Bruce, Colwell, Kenyon, etc. could thus
allow themselves to state dogmatically that Rabbula produced thePeshitta.3 The foregoing thoroughly rebuts the Hort-Burkitt theory
concerning the Peshitta and conclusively shows that the Syrian text
which bears witness to the KJB readings is older by 100 years thaneither Vaticanus or Sinaiticus.
"The Diatessaron", a Gospel Harmony in which Tatian of Assyria wove
into one narrative the material contained in the 4 gospels (c.153–172),still survives in three works. Tatian was supposedly a converted pupil of
Justin Martyr. Irenaeus charged that after the martyrdom of Justin,
Tatian apostatized and wandered into heretical Gnosticism.4 Tatian was
1

Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark, op. cit., p. 56.

2

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 174.

3

Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 91.

4

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1976; rpt. of 1910 orig.), pp. 493–495, 727–730.

165

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

further branded as: having wrongly interpreted I Corinthians 7:5 suchthat he condemned marriage as a corrupt licentiousness and a service ofthe devil, denying that Adam was saved due to Paul's saying "all die in
Adam", and refusing to drink wine at Communion. After his death, hisfollowers substituted water for wine in the Lord's Supper, abstaining
permanently from meat, wine, and marriage due to the supposed intrinsic
uncleanness in the three. However neither his extant apologetic treatise
against the Gentiles (Greeks) nor his Gospel Harmony depicts any tracesof Gnosticism or other heresy.1 Tatian vindicates Christianity andexposes the contradictions, absurdities, and immoralities of Greek
mythology with vehement contempt while also proving that Moses andthe prophets were older and wiser than the Greek philosophers.
All this notwithstanding, the issue is not whether Tatian was an extreme
ascetic or even whether he wandered to the borders of Gnosticism or thefact that he left out the genealogies of Jesus and made misjudgments
producing inaccuracies in his connected account of the life of Christ Jesus
from the 4 Gospels. These do not affect the points that are before us
which center about the fact that Theodoret (390–458 A.D.) found morethan 200 copies of the Diatessaron circulating in Asia Minor and Syria in
his day which had been there from before 170 A.D.2 Tatian reads with
the KJB at Luke 2:33 and John 9:35 which uphold the Deity of Christ andthe virgin birth. Thus the Diatessaron conclusively proves: (1) the
existence and ecclesiastical use of the four Gospels, no more and no less,in the mid 2nd-century, and (2) an Old Syriac witness exists to the KingJames readings which is 200 years older than Vaticanus B or Sinaiticus.
As Latin was the "lingua franca" of the Roman Empire, many of the earlytranslations in this language were in existence throughout the various
countries within the Empire's border. Tertullian mentions a complete
Latin Bible ("Itala", i.e.: the original "Old Latin" produced c.A.D. 157;
unfortunately many critics also use the term for a revision of this work)
as being in use all over North Africa as early as A.D. 190.
The Albigenses (branded heretics by the Roman Church) continued to use
this "Old Latin" long after Jerome completed his version of the Vulgate.
Today we have only about 50 MSS of these Old Latin Versions.3 Thesebear witness to the Syrian text type of the Receptus where the1

Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, op. cit., pp. 727–728.

2

Price, The Ancestry of our English Bible, op. cit., p. 189.

3

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 119.

166

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

Origenians have not tampered with them. In the places where they wereedited, they bear witness to Origen's Hexapla.1 Augustine of Hippo (354–430) and Tertullian (160–220) testify that the scribes in Africa wereconstantly editing and revising the manuscripts.2
About 383 A.D., Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome to produce anofficial revision of the entire "Old Latin" Bible. Hort concluded, and Hills
concurred, that one of the MSS Jerome consulted for the Gospels was
closely related to Codex A resulting in 22 significant agreements between
his Latin Vulgate and the Traditional Text.3 Jerome revised the "OldLatin" O.T. basing his translation on the text of Origen's Hexapla,
making use of material from all the author's columns.4 He boasted aboutthe "vellum scrolls" which the "scholars" had that were "far superior" tothe Bibles used by the common people.5 In his letters, Jerome referred tousing this Greek "original" (actually Origen's Hexapla) to correct andamend the unskillful scribes.6 Remember that Helvidius, a great scholarof northern Italy and contemporary of Jerome, accused Jerome of using
corrupt Greek manuscripts in producing a new Latin Bible for the Pope.7
This would have been a meaningless accusation from Helvidius if hecould not have produced the pure original readings either!

THE BIBLE OF THE VAUDOIS (WALDENSES)

8

Another group of Christians branded as heretics by the Roman Church
was the "Vaudois" who were so called from the alpine valleys in northern
Italy where they lived. Much later they became known as the Waldenses
1

Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, op. cit., pp. 77–79.

2

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1979), Vol. IV, p. 970 (hereafter ISBE); F.C. Burkitt, The Old Latin andthe Itala, (Cambridge: n.p., 1896). The latter is considered the standard source.

3

Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 152; Hills, The King James Version Defended,
op. cit., pp. 187–188.

4

ISBE, op. cit., (1979) Vol. IV, p. 972.

5

Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, op. cit., p. 78.

6

ISBE, James Orr, ed., (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Co., 1937), Vol. III, p. 1841.

7

Post-Nicene Fathers, op. cit., Vol. VI, p. 338.

8

Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, op. cit., pp. 19–44. The present author has
drawn heavily on this fine work by Dr. Wilkerson (Seventh Day Adventist). Dr. David
Otis Fuller cites Wilkinson verbatim from pages 176–318 in Which Bible?

167

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

after a leader, Peter Waldo, who arose among them about 1175 A.D.
History does not afford a record of cruelty greater than that manifested
by Rome toward the Waldenses. Every effort at total extermination, evento the very mention of their existence, was conducted against these
believers for hundreds of years. The destruction of their records beganaround 600 under Pope Gregory I and persecution continued past thegreat massacre of 1655.1
According to Beza, this Church was formed about 120 A.D.2 Its Latin
Bible (the "Italic" or "Itala") which represents the Received Text (Syrian)
was translated from the Greek not later than 157 A.D.3 It is recognizedthat Jerome's Vulgate is the "Itala" (the "Old Latin") with the readings of
the Received Text removed.4 The leadership of the Reformation –German, French and English – was convinced that the Received Text
(TR) was the genuine New Testament, "not only because of its own
irresistible history and internal evidence, but also because it matchedwith the Received Text which in Waldensian form had come down fromthe days of the apostles".5
In producing his translation Luther referred to the Tepl ms which agreed
with the "Old Latin" version that was anterior to Jerome. This Tepl ms
represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into the German
dialect which was spoken before the time of the Reformation. This
undoubtedly was the reason the Roman Church reproved Luther for"following the Waldenses".6 Moreover, the translators of 1611 had before
them four Bibles which had come under Waldensian influences: the
Dioadati in Italian, the Olivetan in French, the Lutheran in German, and
the Genevan in English. Strong evidence exists that they also had accessto at least six Waldensian Bibles written in the old Waldensianvernacular.7
1

Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, op. cit., p. 34.

2Peter Allix, The Ecclesiastical History of the Churches of Piedmont, (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1821; 1st pub. 1690), p. 177.

3

Scrivener, A Plain Introduction, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 43.

4

Kenyon, Our Bible And The Ancient Manuscripts, op. cit., pp. 169–170; cp. pp. 139–144,
238–243.

5

Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, op. cit., pp. 37–38.

6Ernesto Comba, History of The Waldenses of Italy, (London: n.p., 1889), pp. 190–192.

7

Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, op. cit., p. 40.

168

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

Dr. Frederick Nolan, who had already acquired eminence for his Greek
and Latin scholarship and research into Egyptian chronology, spent
twenty-eight years in tracing the Received Text back to its apostolicorigin.1 His investigations showed that the Italic New Testament of theprimitive Christians of northern Italy, the lineal descendants of theWaldenses, was in fact the Received Text. He found remains of theprimitive Italic version embedded in the early translations made by theWaldenses thereby carrying the Waldensenian text back to the A.D. 157"Old Latin" version – thus attesting to the antiquity of the Textus
Receptus.2
Gilly's studies conducted in the mountains of the Piedmont among theWaldenses led him to pen:3"The method which Allix has pursued, in his History of the
Churches of Piedmont, is to show that in the ecclesiastical
history of every century, from the fourth century, which heconsiders a period early enough for the enquirer after apostolicalpurity of doctrine, there are clear proofs that doctrines, unlike
those which the Romish Church holds, and conformable to thebelief of the Waldensian and Reformed Churches, weremaintained by theologians of the north of Italy down to theperiod when the Waldenses first came into notice. Consequently
the opinions of the Waldenses were not new to Europe in theeleventh or twelfth centuries, and there is nothing improbable in
the tradition, that the Subalpine Church persevered in its
integrity in an uninterrupted course from the first preaching of
the Gospel in the valleys".

Although Rome has obliterated the records and calumniated thecharacter of these Christian folk (and many other genuine Christian sects
as well) by lies, falsification and/or destruction of documents and1

Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, op. cit., p. 40.

2Nolan, An Inquiry, op. cit., pp. xvii–xviii. Although Dr. Nolan's study revealed that theold Waldensian Bible was Byzantine in nature and taken from the Old Latin, Dr. Letis
informs us (1-21-1989 correspondence to Moorman) that no Byzantine Old Latin is known
to be extant. The painstakingly detailed learned work by Nolan chiefly presents evidence
to overthrow the critical system of Griesbach and to establish that the Byzantine, not theAlexandrian, manuscripts are the most reliable. He stated that no reliance could beplaced on the printed editions of Origen's works, on the accuracy of his quotations or on
the MSS from which he quoted "Scripture" (pp. 320–321).

3

W.S. Gilly, Waldensian Researches During a Second Visit to the Vaudois of Piedmont,(London: n.p., 1831), pp. 118–119.

169

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

historical records, many earlier historians such as J. Leger, Comba, andNolan have reached the same conclusions as Gilly and Allix. The
immediate question before us is: how could the lineal predecessors of theWaldenses have had such a pure Biblical doctrine1 so unlike the Romish
church to pass down to the Vaudois as mentioned in the preceding quotefrom Gilly? Obviously the pre-Waldensian Christians of northern Italy
could not have held doctrines purer than Rome unless the text of their
Bible was purer than that of Rome; that is, theirs was not produced from
Rome's corrupted manuscripts.2

THE ORIGINAL TEXT PRESERVED HISTORICALLY
THROUGH THE TRUE CHURCH
Constantine's Hexapla based version was met by God through a powerfulchain of churches, few in number compared with the manifold
congregations of an apostate Christendom but, enriched by the presenceof the Holy Scriptures and able scholars, it stretched from Palestine to
Scotland.3 Rome was thus not only unable to obliterate in her own land
the testimony of the Apostolic Scriptures but even far less so in the Greek
speaking world of the hostile East.
The Greek version of the Bible adopted by Constantine (taken from
Origen's Hexapla and his edited N.T. by Eusebius) was produced at atime when Bibles were scarce due to the fury against the Christians andtheir "book" by the Roman Emperor Diocletian (reigned 284–305 A.D.).
Strangely, at a time when imperial favor meant so much, the version
disappeared from popular use in only one generation as if it had been"struck by some invisible and withering blast".4 Why did this happen?
1

McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature,(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1867), Vol. X, p. 855 ("Waldenses"). Among these
doctrines are: that the Holy Scriptures are the only sources of faith and religion without
any regard to the authority of the fathers or tradition; rejection of all the external rites of
the Roman church (i.e.: images, crosses, pilgrimages, worship of holy relics, etc.) except
the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper; rejection of the papal doctrine ofpurgatory and masses or prayers for the dead; rejection of indulgences and confession ofsin to a priest for forgiveness; denial of transubstantiation in the communion; rejection of
the notion that the pope has any God-given authority over other churches; and that themarriage of the clergy is lawful and necessary, etc.

2

Comba, History of The Waldenses of Italy, op. cit., p. 188.

3

Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, op. cit., p. 41. Wilkinson is once again the
primary source under this heading.

4

Ibid., p. 23.

170

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

The Textus Receptus or Greek Vulgate (i.e., commonly used or current)
had been the Bible of the Greek Empire, the countries of Syrian
Christianity, northern Italy, Southern France and the British Isles in thesecond century. This was more than a full century before Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus came to see the light of day under the direction of
Eusebius and Pamphilus. When the Roman Church began to send out
missionaries in later centuries, they found these people already using the
Textus Receptus.1
Moreover, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern
Christianity, subsequently being adopted as the official text of the
Greek Orthodox Church. Hort himself conceded this.2 We also havethe witness of the great Syrian Church, the Waldensian Church ofnorthern Italy, the Gallic Church in France, and the Celtic Church in
Scotland and Ireland as to the authenticity and apostolicity of theReceived Text.3 The ancient records of the first believers in Christ Jesus
in these lands unmistakably reveal that they were first penetrated by
missionaries from Palestine and Asia Minor, not Rome.4 Further, theGreek New Testament (or its translation) these missionaries broughtwith them was of the text type from which the Protestant Bibles such as
the King James and the Lutheran (in German) were translated.
The first converts in ancient Britain held their ground when the pagan
Anglo-Saxons descended over the land like locusts. In A.D. 596, when thePope sent Augustine (not the Bishop of Hippo, see page 167) to convert
England, he treated these early Christian Britons with contempt andeven connived with the Anglo-Saxons in their extermination of thosedevout folk.5 Indeed, British Christianity did not come from Rome.
At the forefront of early evangelism was the little island of Iona, located
off the northwest coast of Scotland. Its most historic citizen was
Columba, an Irish churchman of royal lineage. Columba (521–597)
founded a theological school upon that island rock, utilizing manuscripts
from Asia Minor. From Iona, the Gospel was carried to the Picts on the
1

Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, op. cit., p. 23.

2

Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 143.

3

Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, op. cit., p. 24.

4

Ibid., pp. 25–26.

5Ibid., p. 26.

171Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

mainland, to the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Germany, and even
Italy. When Rome began to send out missionaries to extend her power,
she found Great Britain and northern Europe already professing a
Christianity which could trace its origin back through Iona to Asia
Minor.1 In 596 A.D., Rome sent missionaries to England and Germany tobring these simple Bible believing Christians under her dominion as
much as to subdue the pagans.2
When the Gallic Christians of southern France were massacred by theheathen (177 A.D.), a record of their agony was prepared by the survivors
and sent to their true brothers in Asia Minor – not to the Pope of Rome.3
Christianity came to France from Asia Minor, not Rome, and the same
may be said for England, albeit possibly not directly but through France
and then on to Briton.4 As Italy, France and Great Britain were
provinces of the old Roman Empire, the first translations of the Bible inthose areas were into Latin.5
Rome did not begin to send missionaries westward before 250 A.D. The
old Latin versions, well established among these early disciples before
they came into conflict with Rome, would later bring into sharp focus the
depraved nature of the text of Jerome's Vulgate and the version ofConstantine. Great bloody conflict eventually ensued as Rome moved toreplace these ancient versions with her own Eusebio-Origen type of"bible". The struggle between these two text types continues unabatedthrough their descendants today.
The old Italic version, written in the rude Low Latin (thus verifying its
antiquity) of the second century, held its own as long as Latin continued
1

Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, op. cit., p. 29.

2

Isabel Hill Elder, Celt, Druid, and Culdee, (London: Covenant Pub. House, 1947), pp. 90–
96. Elder declares that England and Ireland resisted because they already had the pure
Gospel. She cites: Gildas as speaking of England's having heard the Gospel by A.D. 37,
even before the N.T. was written (p. 90); Origen as mentioning Christians being in Briton
in A.D. 200 (p. 91); writes that the Druids were converted and that Christianity became
the national religion of the British Isles in A.D. 156 (p. 93); and that St. Patrick (A.D.
389–461) completed his work resulting in 100,000+ Celtic converts over 100 years before
Rome's interest in the Isles.

3

Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, op. cit., p. 30.

4Johann August Wilhelm Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
Vol. I, trans. by J. Torrey, (Boston: Crocker & Brewster, 1848), pp. 85–86.

5Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, op. cit., pp. 26–27.

172

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

to be the language of the people. Jerome's version was only able toreplace it when Latin ceased to be a living (changing) language andbecame the language of the learned. The first Latin translations
maintained themselves against Jerome's Vulgate for nine hundred years.1
The Gothic version N.T. was translated from the Traditional Text c.350
A.D. by Ulfilas, missionary bishop to the Goths; this proves that the T.T.
existed prior to that date.2 Like the Old Latin, this ancient version also
held its own against the Latin Vulgate of Jerome until the tongue inwhich it was written ceased to exist.3
The apostle John's long life enabled him to bear apostolic witness to thetrue text of Scripture and canon until about the year 100 at which time
his hand-trained associates carried forward that same witness. Upon
returning from his banishment to the isle of Patmos, John completed thesacred Canon by composing his Gospel, epistles and Apocalypse. Then,
combining these with the writings of the other Evangelists, he sanctioned
them all with apostolic authority.4
This Traditional Text arose from the place of obscurity and humiliation
forced on it by Origen's version in the hands of Eusebius andConstantine, to become the Received Text of Greek Christianity.5 With
the Greek East completely shut off from the Latin West for 1,000 years,
the noble Waldenses of northern Italy still possessed the Received Text in
Latin form. They became one of the main instruments in the hands ofthe Holy Spirit through which He kept the many promises to preserve theWord of God.
In view of all the preceding, the Roman Church's claim that she gave theBible to the world is seen as false. What she gave was an impure text, atext with thousands of alterations so as to make way for her unscriptural
doctrines. At the same time, she heaped upon those who possessed theveritable Word of God long centuries of pitiless, relentless, merciless,bloodthirsty persecution.
1

ISBE, op. cit., (1979), Vol. IV, p. 973.

2

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 174.

3

Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, op. cit., p. 27.

4

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, op. cit., Book III, ch. 24; also cited by: Nolan, An Inquiry
into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, op. cit., pp. 112–113.

5

Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, op. cit., pp. 41–42.

173

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

IS NATURALISTIC TEXT CRITICISM SCIENTIFIC?
We close this rebuttal with the question: in view of all the foregoing, isnaturalistic textual criticism actually scientific? Having previously been
employed as a paleontologist and geophysicist over a 14 year career, thisauthor submits that his years of study and training in the scientificmethod as well as its accompanying discipline in logic and mathematics
qualifies him to address this question somewhat more dispassionately
than the textual critics themselves. Like Westcott and Hort, whose viewson the matter have already been cited, naturalistic critics uniformly
proclaim that their methods follow scientific standards. They believethat they have been scientific largely because they have taken anaturalistic view and approach to the New Testament Text, priding
themselves on having treated it just as they would the text of any otherancient book. As Hort has put it:1"... we dare not introduce considerations which could notreasonably be applied to other ancient texts, supposing them tohave documentary attestation of equal amount, variety, andantiquity".

Before (by Lachmann, Semler, Griesbach, etc.) and since the publicationof these words, text critics have taken this position as representing a"neutral outlook" in approaching the problem – but they are tragically
mistaken; such is not a "neutral" approach at all – it is pagan. Having
studied many years over the writings of representatives of both sides ofthis issue, this author must agree with the summary statement by theconservative Christian text critic, the late Dr. Edward Freer Hills:2"... if precision and dependability be the marks of an exact
science, surely naturalistic New Testament textual criticism
fails to meet the test. It leaves the major phenomena of the New
Testament text unexplained, especially the Traditional text
found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament
manuscripts. This deficiency readily becomes apparent when we
consider the vain efforts of naturalistic textual critics to accountfor this Traditional text".

The reader should note that when this author mentions "scientific"
methods, he is not referring to "science falsely so called"3 like the1Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 277.

2

Hills, Believing Bible Study, op. cit., pp. 89–91.

3

King James Bible, I Timothy 6:20.

174

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7thoroughly pagan philosophical speculations such as the "Big Bang" or"Steady State" cosmogonies. Neither does he mean other nature myths
that likewise deal with origins such as the hypothesis of evolution (anyversion – being incapable of falsification, organic evolution fails to meet
the technical requirements to merit theory status) nor many of thepantheistic fancies of relativist, all of which have been erected based
upon a few actual facts of science but whose support pillars are merely
philosophy. All of these are no more than fairy stories for adults, full of
metaphysical self-defeating contradictions into which unbelieving
scientists have fallen because they have rejected and/or ignored God'srevelation of Himself.1
Real Science is based upon what you see. Indeed, the first premise in thescientific method states that we begin with an "observed" phenomenon.
Thus, if that which is under investigation is not observable to the eye, it
may or may not be true but, by definition, it is not science. It will be
immediately noted that as no one alive today has actually physically seenGod, the scientific method places God beyond and exterior to the realm ofscience. However, it also places many supposed scientific hypotheses andtheories outside the same realm for no mortal "observed" the origin of theuniverse or the solar system. Neither has anyone "seen" any organic
evolution occur. Hence it must be recognized and acknowledged that the
advocates of these views are not practicing real science; they, like theadherents of the opposing side, are engaged in a philosophic belief
system. Such practices of faith have long been defined by a well known
term – and that appellation is "religion". Thus both sides are going
through life practicing their beliefs and in so doing are being "religious".
One side honestly admits this; the other is self-deceived and does not soconcede.
Regarding organic evolution, we are not referring to genetic variation
within the dog kind (whereby c.200 different varieties ranging fromdachshund to Great Dane may be produced by selective breeding),
varieties of mosquitoes adapting to DDT, or population changes occurring
between the dark and light varieties of peppered moths. Such are only
"horizontal" changes (micro-evolution) revealing the inherent ability to
1

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., pp. 240–241. Here Dr. Hills exhibits
excellent yet rare insight with regard to the problems inherent with modern godlessscience. Although this author does not necessarily agree with all of his conclusions,brother Hills grasped the situation and true scientific fundamentals better than nearly
all of today's Christ-professing scientists.

175Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

adapt which is built into the DNA code of living creatures that allows
them to survive limited changes in the environment so as not to readily
become extinct. Such occurrences, though often cited as examples of
evolution, have nothing whatsoever to do with macro-evolution (which is,after all, what evolution – neo-Darwinian or punctuated equilibrium – isreally all about) whereby organisms progress upward over time toward
more complexity and higher degrees of order – for in the cited examples
neither of these prerequisites takes place.
That is, we are referring to the alleged type of change in which the dog
kind and cat kind originated from a common ancestor. All the dog
varieties produced by the aforementioned selective breeding are still"Canis familiaris" and, being the genus Canis, are interfertile (althoughsize differences can produce physical difficulties) and can produce fertile
offspring (the scientific prerequisites for determining Genera). Moreover,the mosquitoes remain the same variety and can still reproduce withothers like it was before the adaptation took place and the dark and lightforms of the moths are internally identical remaining the same generaand species, Biston betularia.1 Absolutely no upward progress over time
toward more complexity and higher degrees of order has taken place.
1

Duane T. Gish, Evolution, the Fossils Say No!, (San Diego, CA: Master Books, 1972), pp.
38–39. Normally the peppered moth is white with black spots and stripes. Although oncea rarity, the dark (carbonaria or melanic) form has always been known. Around 1850
A.D., the tree trunks in England were mostly light colored, and the mottled gray lichen
grew on them. Desperate for evidence that evolution by natural selection was actually
happening in the present, the story was concocted that during the daytime the moths
rested on the trunks with wings outspread. Being nearly undetectable by the predatory
birds, the light-colored variant supposedly blended with the environment and flourishedwhereas the darker form was readily seen, and its population was depressed. However,with the advent of the industrial revolution and its accompanying pollution, the treelichen died and the trunks became progressively darker due to the resultant air
contamination. As the lighter had lost their protective coloration advantage, by the1950's the dark moths had become about 98% of the total population. Supposedly, thepopulation shift was due to the darker moths being now inconspicuous against theblackened tree trunks whereas the lighter forms had become more easily detected while
resting against the darker background. This was offered as proof that the "peppered"moth had somehow evolved into the "melanic moth" as a defense against the birds during
the industrial revolution in England. But peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks inthe daytime; they hide under leaves in treetops! The filmed "experiments" were faked bypinning or gluing moths on the trunks. All was artificial. Real science had been
manipulated; yet this has become the chief proof of evolution in action in our day.
But was this ever actually an example or proof of evolution? Indeed it was not. The
process had nothing to do with increasing complexity or producing anything new,therefore this had nothing whatever to do with proving that the lepidopterous insects
arose by a naturalistic, mechanistic evolutionary process from non-lepidopterous insects

176

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

Finally, the fossil record which is offered by evolutionists as physicalproof of their belief is totally against them. Not only are the transitional
forms missing between all the major animal and plant groups, thepresence of which would be necessary to maintain such an hypothesis,
the gaps are of an unimaginable magnitude. The fossil record is one ofmass destruction, death, and burial (almost exclusively by water and its
suspended sediments), not that of one kind transforming into another.
Contrary and hostile to the evolutionary scenario, the fossil record not
only reveals a systematic absence of transitional forms, it reveals thesudden explosive appearance of highly diverse forms of life without any
preceding intermediate types. Furthermore, since all of the major phyla
are found in the Cambrian, the bulk of evolutionary diversity had to havetaken place before that era, yet – even granting the legitimacy of thepitifully few supposed Pre-Cambrian "microfossils" (which we do not), thegap between these so-called microfossils and the highly organized,
diversified life forms found in the Cambrian is immense. The Cambrianorganisms ancestors are simply not to be found. In short, the laws ofthermodynamics tell us that evolution could not happen, and the fossil
record tells us that evolution did not happen – and that is real science.
or whether the insects arose from a non-insect life. Moreover, we started with a moth,and 100 years later we still had a moth. Both remaining forms (light & dark) wereinternally identical and remained the same genera and species (Biston betularia).
Positively no upward progress over time toward more complexity and higher degrees oforder has taken place.
Furthermore, change resulting in variation within a "kind" is as much to be expected in
the Creation Model as it is in the evolutionary scenario. Such variation in the createdgene pool would enable the original kinds to have some leeway to adapt to environmental
changes. Otherwise they would experience extinction at the slightest changes in watersupply, temperature, altitude, food supply etc. This pre-designed built in safety measure
was necessary due to the effect of the God imposed Curse that accompanied the Fall
which had to be harmonized with the Creator's desire to also preserve (conserve) the
created life forms until they had served their God-intended purposes.
The evolutionist assumes that the accumulation of many minor advantages over time,such as color changes in moth populations which defends against predators, could
eventually result in increased complexity and higher order generating a new species, but
this is not science. It is merely a belief based solely upon assumption. To bring this tothe level of science requires historical observation, experiential evidence, or a transitional
series of forms in the fossil record that changes of this kind actually resulted in the
production of forms of higher degrees of order and complexity. There does exist change
within a kind, but the changes always remain within the kind. This is what man has
observed (real science is based on that which is observable; everything else that is madeout to be science actually falls into the categories of philosophy or religion) and thatobservation supports Creationism, for that model contains as part of its basic premisethat all changes will stay within the God-established bounds of the original created kind.

177Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

Being un-observable, un-testable and thus un-provable, these naturemyths (Big Bang etc. – there being several other plausible scientificexplanations to account for the "red shift" besides that of an expanding
universe) are outside the realm of science. Hence, their adherents must
be seen as continuing on in faith with regard to these theories andhypotheses and moreover in so pursuing invariably violate many otherwell established laws and principles of real science – especially the firstand second laws of thermodynamics. Therefore, the Christian should not
be intellectually intimidated by them. Rather, we mean the logic andmethod of true empirical observable science.
Furthermore, textual criticism is not "scientific" because over the years
nearly all of its leading proponents have systematically ignored themassive contrary evidence, refusing to give serious consideration to theobjections, questions, and deliberations of the men who present such
hostile testimony against their liberal views. It is not scientific because it
continues to scorn and disregard the vast majority of manuscript data
even though the supposed justification for so doing, the late text
hypothesis and that of the Antiochian recension, has been completely
exposed as untrue and baseless. Indeed, the notable works of Burgon,
Miller, Hoskier, Scrivener, Hills, Pickering, and others who havechampioned the antithetical position have yet to obtain the hearing they
deserve; yet such should be found in a truly open "scientific" forum where
the supposed objective is to examine all the data and arrive at the truth.
Today, extremely few Greek New Testament students have ever heard ofthese men other than perhaps a few aside derogatory remarks such as"Burgon was the champion of lost causes", much less seen a copy of theirworks or actually read them. Yet Burgon, despite his witticisms andtaunts, presented innumerable documented hard facts and in so doing
followed along a true scientific approach much more so than did Westcottand Hort who, lacking hard proof, often resorted to fanciful imagination.
Nevertheless W&H have been allowed a full hearing and attracted alarge following. And why is this so? Part of the answer may be seen in
Hoskier's remark: "The reason is sadly obvious, the latter method istaken easy, and at first sight plausible to the beginner. The former ishorribly laborious, although precious in results".1

1Herman C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, 2 Vols., (London: Bernard
Quaritch, Ltd., 1929), Vol. I, p. xlvii.

178

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

Moreover, the undeniable truth, as Letis has been documenting for the
past several years, is that textual criticism leads to higher criticism
which inevitably leads to the rejection of the historical and miraculous in
the Word of God. Further, the 18th-century myth that "text criticism
does not affect doctrine or the fundamental truths of Christianity" seizes,
mesmerizes, and seduces all who have been formally instructed at
educational institutions of higher learning, especially those who haveattained advanced theological training.1 Indeed, it is precisely the denialof these points that has lead to the destruction of the faith of many of
today's pastors and priest with regard to the written Word of the Living
God and has, since about the turn of the 20th century, allowed for the freepromotion of the modern translations which are all founded on thecritical (eclectic) text.
Kenyon's words: "It is true (and cannot be too emphatically stated) thatnone of the fundamental truths of Christianity rests on passages of which
the genuineness is doubtful"2 are simply naive in the extreme as well as
untrue. Regardless of the eminence of whosoever utters Kenyon's
sentiment – it is a deception devoid of truth. Again, the plain errors offact and contradictions incorporated in the eclectic text of the New
Testament invalidates the doctrine of Divine Inspiration as it thereby
becomes relative as well as rendering untenable the doctrine of the
Scriptures as being the infallible deposit of God's Word to man.
Finally, this author concludes with Hoskier that without a demonstrable
history of the transmission of the text (sans flights of the imagination) as
well as an understanding of the interaction of the versions upon eachother and upon the Greek texts, text criticism can never be said to rest ona "scientific" foundation.3 Indeed, Hoskier stated that it was this lack ofscientific basis in the field of textual criticism that most concerned Dean
Burgon.4

1

Letis, in 1-12-1992, 4-6-1992 and 3-17-1993 correspondence from Edinburgh, Scotland.

2

Kenyon, Our Bible And The Ancient Manuscripts, op. cit., pp. 3–4; also see p. 55 in the1958 edition for a similar remark.

3

Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 415.

4

Ibid.

179

Hortian-Eclectic Theory Refuted

chapter 7

O how I love thy law!
it is my meditation all the day.
Thou through thy commandments
hast made me wiser than mine enemies:
for they are ever with me.
I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation.
I understand more than the ancients,
because I keep thy precepts.
Psalms 119:97–100

180

VIII. THE BELIEVING FRAME OF REFERENCETHE CHURCH'S HISTORICAL TEXT
Of course, by faith we know that we do not have to wait for such a
meticulous lengthy undertaking as described in the previous chapter (seepp. 161 ff.) to be completed in order for us to finally possess the original
text. By faith, the child of God knows that he already has the Word of
God at his disposal. A study of the history of the transmission of the
Scriptures from their having been deposited by the Lord into the hands ofman will further serve to strengthen that faith; yet such a study will notcompletely prove beyond all doubt that this is so.
This cannot be over emphasized, for unless we come by faith to acommitment that God has kept His promises and providentiallypreserved His Word in the Textus Receptus itself and not merely in the
Greek majority readings, the final form of the text will forever be
unsettled in our hearts.1 The natural, rational mind resents this method.
However the pitfalls apart from such a theological approach are manyand dangerous. The late Dr. Edward F. Hills was consistently Christianand perceptive in his logic when he addressed this matter regarding its
relation to higher education.2"We must make God and Jesus Christ His Son the starting pointof all our thinking. But how can we do this on the graduatelevel at a theological seminary or a university? How can weknow for example, whether the King James Version is a correcttranslation or not? Don't we have to rely on dictionaries, such as
Brown-Driver-Briggs, Thayer, Kittel, and Liddel-Scott? And forgrammar don't we have to go to the great authorities in thisfield, such as Gesenius, Bauer, and Blass-Debrunner? ... For our
knowledge of the New Testament manuscripts are we notobliged to depend almost entirely on the writings of experts,
such as Gregory, Kenyon, Colwell, Metzger, and Aland? When
we study the Bible on the graduate level, therefore, how

1

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., pp. 106–112, 224–225, etc. This is Dr.
Hills continuing theme throughout his works.

2

Ibid., pp. 113–114. The reader is enjoined to read the non-cited portions of this quote
which have not been given for the sake of brevity; here Hills explains "the logic of faith"with regard to the TR & KJB.

181

Believing Frame of Reference

chapter 8

can we begin with God? Must we not rather begin withmen? With the information provided by scholars, most ofwhom are unbelievers? (emphasis added)"Questions like these cause many conservative seminary
students to panic and become virtual unbelievers in theirbiblical studies.
In order, therefore, to prevent suchcatastrophes, we must always emphasize the Christian starting
point that all our thinking ought to have. If we are Christians,
then we must begin our thinking not with the assertions of
unbelieving scholars and their naturalistic human logic, butwith Christ and the logic of faith.
"... In biblical studies, in philosophy, in science, and in every
other learned field we must begin with Christ and then work out
our basic principles according to the logic of faith. This
procedure will show us how to utilize the learning of nonChristian scholars in such a way as to profit by their instruction.
Undeniably these unbelievers know a great many facts by virtueof God's common grace. They misinterpret these facts, however,
because they ignore and deny God's revelation of Himself in andthrough the facts.
Hence our task is to point out theinconsistencies and absurdities of unbelieving thought and thento take the facts which learned unbelievers have assembled andplace them in their proper framework of biblical truth.

Dr. Hills concludes:1"... Begin with Christ and the Gospel and follow the logic offaith. This is the principle that must guide us in our graduate
studies, especially in the biblical field. If we adhere to it, theneverything we learn will fit beautifully into its place in theChristian thought-system. But if we ignore Christ and adopt aneutral approach to knowledge, we will soon lose ourselves in awilderness of details and grow more and more chaotic in our
thinking".

Indeed, if we only used the majority concept as our standard, we would
remain in constant uncertainty – in a state of flux. Who knows but on
the morrow the archaeologist's spade may uncover an ancient library
containing hundreds or even several thousands of Greek manuscripts
embodying the "Alexandrian" text? Thus, the true reading would always
hang in doubt for still later another library may be discovered with
1

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 114.

182

Believing Frame of Reference

chapter 8"Western" readings or even "Syrian". But we need not be concerned, for
God has not left us depending upon the spade of the archaeologist to
determine the true text. Neither are we awaiting his discovering new
papyri hiding in a jar somewhere. If we did so, our faith would always bewavering, and we could never be confident that a dealer would not soon
appear with something new from somewhere else. We would be
wondering if the damming of the Nile River had destroyed some Greek
text which would show us a new wonderful truth.
We already possess and have had all along the actual TRUTH of
Scripture! It was never lost. We have, by faith in God's promises topreserve His Word, an assumed premise, a priori, of God's providential
preservation of the text. Someone may say "prove it", but this fails tocomprehend the nature of a priori premise. As Letis has reminded us:"One does not prove a first premise. A premise by definition is something
one assumes, not something he proves".1 And even more to the point –the context of these promises having been for the use of His people
throughout time – we rest with maximum certainty that we already havethose precious Words at our disposal as preserved in the Bible of theReformation.2 We are not lingering in expectation for the modern text
critics to "restore" them to us.
It is not our position that the text found in the majority is the true text
merely because it is found in the majority of mss (although some do soargue). It is the reason that this text is found present in the majoritythat is decisive. "The reason", says Letis, "that all defenders of the TR
since the Reformation follow the majority text is because it reflects theactual text HISTORICALLY USED BY THE CHURCH – the believers in
all ages to whom Jesus promised to lead into all truth – as sacred text".3
True, the supporting evidence such as that of Sturz' mentioned in chapter
seven which revealed that the papyri sustained many of the Byzantine
readings as being second century was encouraging, but our confidence is
1

Theodore P. Letis, "A Reply to the Remarks of Mark A. McNeil" (Edinburgh: 9-3-1990),
p. 2. This is a 5 page response by Dr. Letis to a 8-14-1990 appeal for documentation from
Mr. Eldred Thomas (Vid. supra, fn. 3, p. 67), whose program on the subject of Biblicaltexts had aired resulting in Mr. Mark McNeil's having taken issue with him on several
particulars.

2

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., pp. 224–225.

3

Telephone conversation with the author, October, 1989. Dr. Letis has contended thesame many times in various articles and correspondence (also Hills, King James Version
Defended, op. cit., p. 113). He so does in fn 1 above (Reply to ... McNeil).

183

Believing Frame of Reference

chapter 8

not in isolated scrapes of old papyri or vellum. It is founded on a muchsurer foundation. Our confidence is in God's never failing promises andin the text which has been continuously in public usage by the Church.
This is why the TR is the true text, not merely because of its great
statistical "superiority" or "probability".
Furthermore, when we use such phrases as "the Word of God says ...","the Scriptures say ..." or "the Holy Bible says ..." etc., we do not merelymean the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Textus Receptus (Syrian,
Byzantine, Traditional Text, or majority text). We are referring tosomething contained between the covers of one Book, something that we
can hold in our hands as English speaking laymen or elders. We are
speaking of an entity which we can read daily for our own edification andread aloud to our families, friends, and Church. That "something" isknown as the Authorized or King James Bible. We proclaim without
reservation that it is the Holy Spirit guided, absolutely faithful English
translation and rendering of God's original wording. As such, it speaks to
us as final authority (in context) against which all matters must be
measured and tested. It is "THE" Bible, the living Words of the Living
God – it is the Word of God.

THE MODERN VIEW OF INERRANCY AMONG MOST
CLERGYThe current vogue in conservative, fundamentalist scholarship will comeas a great surprise to the layman. Today, most conservative Protestantclergymen have been brainwashed as mere youths in their late teens or
early twenties at the various denominational Bible colleges andseminaries concerning the doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture. As a result,when most of these pastors etc., declare that they believe in the verbal,
plenary inspiration and/or inerrancy (or some other similar declaration offaith in the Scriptures) what they really mean is that only the original
autographa were inerrant.
Now this is devastating, as we have no originals preserved for our use.
But the situation is even worse than that, for neither do the vast majorityof these men believe that the text contained in the original autographs
has been preserved intact. That is, they have been taught as very young
men that for hundreds of years many original readings have been lost to
the Church.

184

Believing Frame of Reference

chapter 8

They have also been taught, hence most subscribe to the teaching, thatthese lost readings are in the process (and have been so for the past one
hundred years) of being restored back to their pristine original forms by
the use of modern textual criticism techniques and methods. Thus, if wewere to ask one of the scholars representing this school of thought
whether he could show us the "infallible Word of the Living God", hewould take us to his private study – wave his hand toward between 800–
1200 books on his library shelves and reply that somewhere contained
within all those volumes exists the Word of God. He would inform usthat the problem was very complex, but all was well as he and otherbrilliant scholars were working on putting the puzzle back together.
Besides, he would assure us, no major doctrinal issues are in doubt in themeantime.
If we pressed these men further to better define their position, we would
discover that very few believe that there exists on the earth today
between two covers such that it could be held in the hand – the Bible.
That is – in their view, is that which they hold in their hand having thewords "Holy Bible" inscribed thereon and read from the pulpit to theirflocks, the inerrant Word of God? If they were honest, regardless of theversion to which they personally subscribe, the answer would be "NO!"When these men are interviewed by pulpit committees, deacons etc. andare asked whether they believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures, they
will invariably reply in the affirmative.1 However, this is a deception.
The committee means something that they can hold in their hands,
study, meditate over, and read to their children. As outlined previously,
the potential local pastor being interviewed means something quite
different. Thus a deliberate wicked misrepresentation of beliefs is being
foisted upon the laity. The reason for the dishonesty is that mostconservative congregations would not knowingly select men of so little
faith in God's promises to preserve His Word to serve as their pastors.
Truly of those the Scripture has spoken and is verified in them:
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted
after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves throughwith many sorrows (I Tim.6:10).

1

The candidate having been so instructed by his seminary professors – remember Semler's"accommodation" policy? (see Ch. VI., page 122)185

Believing Frame of Reference

chapter 8

HOW PRINCETON WAS CORRUPTED

1

How did such a dreadful situation arise in the first place? Sad to say, theman responsible was a man of God, a deceived Christian brother. Thatbrother's name is Benjamin B. Warfield, and the following is a brief
description portraying the truth of how "a little leaven leavens the wholelump". The time is in the late 1800's and early 1900's.
J.S. Buckminster had persuaded the officials of Harvard College to
publish an American edition of Griesbach's2 1809 Greek New Testament,
as he viewed text criticism "a most powerful weapon to be used against
the supporters of verbal inspiration". Warfield, the eventual champion of
the Princeton school, was well aware of this "weapon" and determined toneutralize it. However, in attempting to accomplish this goal hecompromised his previous commitment and views on inerrancy, altering
them into a new doctrine. The result on American conservatism was thatlower (textual) criticism came to be viewed as "safe".
Princeton had for many years been a conservative Presbyterian bastion offaith, fully dedicated to verbal inspiration and inerrancy. True, someaccommodations crept in after 1834, yet Princeton remained reasonably
true to the Word. Prior to Warfield's arrival in 1887, no Princetonian had
attained expert status in the young discipline of New Testament text
criticism (though his mentor Charles Hodge had studied two years inGermany). Like Hodge, Warfield felt that one had to study in Germany
to be abreast of critical issues. He also was aware that in New England
text criticism (the so-called "lower criticism") was undermining theorthodox view of verbal inspiration.
With a letter of introduction from Philip Schaff, Warfield entered the
University of Leipzig in 1876 for a year's study. Previously, as a firm
believer in inerrancy, he had fully subscribed to the Westminster
Confession which upheld the doctrine of preservation with regard to the
Bible of the Reformation. After 1876, Warfield – guided by his Common
1

Theodore P. Letis, Edward Freer Hills' Contribution to the Revival of the EcclesiasticalText, (Unpublished M.T.S. thesis, Emory University: 1987), pp. 71–106. The information
under this heading has been adapted from Letis' second chapter.

2

To recall Griesbach's canon regarding variant readings being "suspicious" if they favoredorthodox teachings of the Church, see page 97. Then consider that Westcott and Hort
venerated Griesbach's name "above that of every other textual critic of the New
Testament". Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 185.

186

Believing Frame of Reference

chapter 8

Sense philosophy – consciously rejected the "Scholastic"1 approach andbecame the first American to become an authority in the theory andpraxis of "Enlightenment"2 New Testament text criticism at Princeton.
During his year at Leipzig, Warfield's resolve weakened under theconstant barrage of "variant readings" and Hortism. He had come tobelieve the true text had in some places been lost though he still felt, forthe most part, it had remained untouched through time. Warfield andHodge had come to embrace the Westcott-Hort theory believing thatthese men were exemplary models of evangelical scholarship while at thesame time attuned to German methods. Warfield now saw as his callingthe integration of Biblical criticism with the historic view of verbal
inspiration.
In short, neither Warfield, Hodge nor most evangelicals since haverealized that what they correctly recognize as "that dangerous higher
criticism" is inexorably interwoven with and subtly tied to the "safe"
discipline of lower criticism. Warfield had intended to defend "verbal
inspiration" from German attacks naively thinking that lower criticism,
dealing as it does with the "concrete facts", remained immune to the"speculations" of the higher critics.
B.B. Warfield's Common-Sense philosophy allowed him to adopt the"scientific" text criticism method of Westcott and Hort. He accepted theirclaim that they had constructed a "neutral" text. The fact that W-H had
arrived at such a determination without any reference to theology madetheir arguments all the more compelling for Warfield. He reasoned that
this method must be God's means of restoring the true text
(humanistic). Thus he had shifted from his former view of "providential
preservation" to one of "providential restoration" in the new text of1

Scholasticism: the philosophical and theological method taught in Medieval schools
which revived in the 16th through the 20th centuries. It embodied the use of Aristotelian
logic as an aid to better understand the Christian revelation. It was an attempt byintellectual process to attain a deeper penetration into the inner meaning of Christian
doctrine, thus philosophy had a great role in scholastic thought. Utilizing thesis method,
it represented an attempt to reconcile reason and faith, philosophy and revelation.

2

The Enlightenment: a "freedom of the intellect" movement in 18th century Germany
which spread into much of Europe. It was founded upon the presupposition of faith in theomnipotence of human ability. The Enlightenment sought the path to absolute truth
through "pure reason", observation and experimentation without guidance from anyoneelse. Its adherents distrusted all authority and tradition in matters of intellectual
inquiry.

187

Believing Frame of Reference

chapter 8

Westcott and Hort. This was a radical change of interpretation of theWestminster Confession.
Eventually Warfield and his colleague in textual studies, Philip Schaff,feeling that "enlargement is not alteration, development is not revolution,
elaboration is not correction" (does not this sound akin to theistic
evolution?) came to delight in the notion of updating the old creedal
standards. They came to desire a revision of the Westminster creed thatwould be in accordance with "the advanced stage of theology".
Shortly after his return from Leipzig, the Westcott-Hort text was
published (1882). Benjamin B. Warfield gave it a review that would
forever endear it to conservatives in the United States. Philip Schaff,himself an accomplished textual scholar, was so impressed with
Warfield's elucidation of the Westcott-Hort method of "genealogy" that heinvited Warfield to explain it in his Companion To The Greek Testament
And English Version. This was tantamount to elevating Warfield to thefirst rank in this discipline in America.
John Burgon, a high Anglican priest but opposed to ritualism, spent mostof his adult life at Oxford. Burgon, who eventually became the Dean ofChichester, viewed Westcott and Hort in a much different light. He sawthem as guilty of importing the apostate German method into the British
Isles. Warfield despised Burgon, an irony as they were fellow inerrantist,because Burgon relied on theology to interpret textual data. Indeed, thisis the correct world view, frame of reference and approach that theChristian should bring to every issue of life. To the contrary however,Warfield felt that the faithful should follow the same method as did the"Enlightenment" scholars, treating Scripture as any other piece ofliterature, without reference to either its inspiration or uniqueness. Thus
Warfield took every opportunity to discredit Burgon's theologicalarguments in order to distance modern Presbyterians from the suspicionof resisting "scientific" scholarship by an appeal to theology.
Having been encouraged by A.A. Hodge to defend the Princeton view of
verbal inspiration against an attack by the critical theories of Charles S.
Briggs, Warfield found himself on the horns of a dilemma. His challenge
was to act as champion and come to the rescue of Princeton in response to
Briggs and other critics and still protect his own reputation as an
emerging future authority in text criticism. Yet text criticism was theone discipline which seemed to undermine the Princeton view of verbal
inspiration more than any other! Warfield had become a contradiction.

188

Believing Frame of Reference

chapter 8

While admitting on the one hand that in text critical matters the Bible
was as any other literature, Warfield had to contend that it was still theverbally inspired Word of God.
For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God(John 12:43).
This was a demanding task indeed, but not intellectually beyond
Warfield's abilities. Warfield's solution was to shift his doctrine ofinerrancy to include only the original autographa; no longer holding to
the belief in the inerrancy of the Bible of the Reformers, the Traditional
Text. Thus he moved that if the locus of providence were now centered in
restoration via "Enlightenment" textual criticism, rather thanpreservation of the traditional texts, then we need not concern ourselveswith the criticisms lodged at the text of Scripture presently (andhistorically!) used in the Church. This posture allowed Warfield toactually join with the critics of the Princeton position as God's agents (oras some view it, as prophets) in the task of restoring the inerrant
original.

HOW THE CONSERVATIVE SEMINARIES WERE
1
CORRUPTEDYear after year, Enlightenment critics wore down the orthodox Calvinist
and other conservatives by pointing out the many discrepancies (variant
readings) within the textual data. Warfield proved untrue to his original
goal and finally abandoned the scholastic, creedal approach.
He
determined that if text criticism – German Enlightenment text criticism– could be separated from the higher criticism that fathered it, with
common sense at the helm, it could lead the Church safely to the goal.
Moreover, if errors and "corruptions" within our present copies could be
acknowledged, then perhaps just around the corner lay the pristine
autographa waiting to be restored by God's good Providence. Yet textual
criticism invariably leads to higher criticism in rejecting eventually thehistorical and miraculous in God's Word. The denial of this point has
allowed the promotion of the many modern translations over the past
century. It is a myth that text criticism is harmless to faith.

1

Letis, Edward Freer Hills' Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text, op. cit.,
the material written under this heading has been adapted from pp. 86, 87, 103–105.

189

Believing Frame of Reference

chapter 8

For the early Princetonians, authority had rested in the providentiallypreserved text which had been employed by the Church throughout its
history, that same text having been used by the Spirit of God to bringabout the Reformation.
It was B.B. Warfield who brought the
Enlightenment to Princeton. The following quote1 depicts the depths ofthe deception into which he plunged after his return from Leipzig, a
deception which has greatly aided in the satanically guided move to bringus back to the Roman Catholic "Bible" and – eventually – to the Pope.
"I have been surprised, in comparing the Revised Testament
with other versions, to find how many of the changes, which areimportant and valuable, have been anticipated by the Rhemish(Roman Catholic) translation, which now forms a part of what is
known as the Douay Bible. ... And yet a careful comparison ofthese new translations with the Rhemish Testament, showsthem, in many instances to be simply a return to this old
version, and leads us to think that possibly there were as
finished scholars three hundred years ago as now, and nearly as
good apparatus for the proper rendering of the original text".
(author's emphasis and parenthesis)

Soon after Warfield's death in 1921, higher criticism entered Princeton
and the Seminary was reorganized in 1929 to more fully accommodate
critical thought. The facile certainty that Westcott and Hort's systemseemed to offer Warfield vanished as later text critics abandoned thenotion of being able to reconstruct a "neutral" text based on Codices B
and a. "Eclecticism" (which has long despaired of discovering anarchetypal, autographic text – apparently because in their judgment, nosuch entity ever existed!) became the standard approach in text criticism,and it dominates to this hour.
The adoption of the German methods and the reorganization of Princeton
are part of Warfield's legacy. Another part of his legacy is that his
position on inerrancy was continued through the godly professors whose
lives he had influenced such as Robert Dick Wilson, J. Gresham Machen,
Oswald Allis, and Cornelius Van Til. These all left Princeton at the 1929
reorganization and went on to establish Westminster TheologicalSeminary.
Tragically, they carried with them Warfield's warped
reinterpretation of the Westminster Confession which professes the"scientific" text criticism of Westcott and Hort as God's means of1

Benjamin B. Warfield, Collection of Opinions, Vol. II, pp. 52–53.

190

Believing Frame of Reference

chapter 8

eventually "restoring" the autographic text.
Seminary soon became "frozen in time".

As a result, Westminster

The cancer of Warfieldian inerrancy spread rapidly from Princeton
throughout the ranks of the Presbyterians. From there it continued to
infect other conservative groups. During the early part of the 20thcentury the Southern Baptists adopted Westcott and Hort through theperson of their greatest Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson. Robertson greatly
admired Warfield and succumbed to his beliefs on text criticism. In 1925,
Robertson dedicated his handbook "to the memory of B.B. Warfield".1 To
this very day, the poison continues to infiltrate and dominate allconservative circles. Truly, "a little leaven leavens the whole lump".
The reason that this wicked compromise began and goes on unabated, isthat brilliant Christian scholars have refused to humble their intellects –placing their own education and intellect above the promises of God andhistoric Church creeds on inerrancy. All too many find themselves
unwilling to stand in simple faith alongside the dauntless Reformers,
Burgon, Miller, Hoskier, Nolan, Hills, Van Bruggen, Fuller, Pickering,
D.A. Waite, Green, Letis, Moorman as well as many other men of God
over the past centuries – wishing instead to be admired by theircolleagues and peers as "progressive", "informed", and "abreast of thelatest scientific approaches". The vast majority thereby blindly supports
the "restoration" position.
1

A.T. Robertson, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, (London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1925), and pp. vii–ix. Warfield's compromises included that of
Scripture and evolution. Accepting the supposed great age of the earth as required byevolutionary hypothesis (as had Princetonians Charles Hodge and his son Alexander),Warfield continued bringing down Princeton Theological Seminary by assuring hisreaders that evolution could "...supply a theory of the method of divine providence".
Arthur Custance, Two Men Called Adam, (Brockville, Ontario: Doorway Publications,1983), pp. 3–7. Robertson further compromised himself by accepting the Synoptic
problem. This hypothesis teaches that the similarities and differences between theGospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke may only be resolved by assuming a literary
relationship among them. Thus the evangelists must have copied from each other and/or
consulted the same written source(s) – that the Gospels are the result of interdependence
among the three "Synoptic" writers. It purports that Luke and Matthew used Mark in
preparing their Gospel accounts and that since Matthew and Luke recorded nearly
identical matter for much not found in Mark they both used a second source in common(i.e., "Q" for the German quelle or "source"). Further, that Mark wrote his gospel under
the direct influence of Simon Peter (not the Holy Spirit?): Robertson, A Harmony of theGospels, (NY: Harper & Row, 1922), pp. vii, 255–256. Yet the Synoptic Problem cannot
be proven neither indeed does it exist! Eta Linnemann, Is There A Synoptic Problem?,(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), pp. 9–15, 24–27.

191

Believing Frame of Reference

chapter 8

Though at first the reader may be taken aback by the following, let him
read it over several times until it be comprehended. We need not beinterested in anything concerning the "originals" or "autographs". God
saw fit to destroy the original autograph of the tables of stone upon which
the Ten Commandments were inscribed, as well as the second tables.
Moreover, He allowed wicked King Jehoiakim to cut up and burn the"original autograph" given to Jeremiah and written by Baruch while atthe same time the Lord preserved the original text without error(Jer.36, esp. vv. 22–23, 28 and 32).
Nor are we waiting in anticipation for some archaeologist or textual critic
to "find and restore" to the Church the "original" text. In certain faith inGod's many promises to preserve His Holy Word, we know that wealready have these ten "Living Words" exactly as the Lord gave them toMoses, as well as those of Jeremiah etc. Were we to discover the"original", by faith we know that it would read exactly as we have had
preserved for us in the TR/KJB.
Likewise, it is God Himself as Sovereign Lord and King who was pleasedin His wisdom to destroy the autographs of the N.T. Thus, it is tempting
God and sinful for us to say that there were (and can still be obtained via
text critical techniques) autographs better and more reliable than theProvidentially Preserved Bible that we have today. We are not, therefore,
interested in any discussion or so-called scholarship which seeks to"uncover" what the originals were like. It is His preserved Bible that is
the Word of God, not the autographs. The autographs were the infallible
Word of God. As they no longer exist, they cannot be the Word of God –for God has promised that He would preserve His Word forever.
Nearly everyone who invokes the autographs does so to alter (and thus
pervert) the Providentially preserved Scriptures. Most men and/or
institutions that claim to embrace the "Doctrine of Inerrancy" do so
intending it to apply only to the "originals". In so doing, they haveembraced Warfield's perverted version and definition of "inerrancy".
Such men and/or institutions lay claim to faith in "inerrancy" but have nodoctrine of Providential Preservation and thus they are still – sad to say –looking for (or attempting to restore) the inerrant autographs. It is
deceitful for pastors to hold high the Bible and proclaim "I believe God's
Word is inspired from cover to cover" while saying under one's breath, "in
the autographs". To maintain that we must have the autographs today inorder to be certain of the text is as imprudent and needless as to insist

192

Believing Frame of Reference

chapter 8that we require the cup from which Christ drank before communion canbe rightly celebrated.1
Thus, whereas we aver and asseverate that the "originals" were
"inspired" (Greek = θεοπνευστος = theopneustos = inspired by God or God
breathed) and inerrant, we cannot subscribe to the modern version of the"Doctrine of Inerrancy" as it embodies only the "originals" whereas it
excludes Providential preservation of the original text. This "Doctrine of
Inerrancy" must be recognized by the Church as un-scriptural, untrue,
tainted, prostitute, and depraved – a Canaanite idol – as it, in its current
Warfieldian form, holds only to a non-existent entity.
Moreover, it is MADNESS to attempt to attain something that one
already has as his possession. Hours upon wasted hours of study andresearch have methodically been carried out, not only by lost apostates
and liberals, but – sadly – by brilliant conservative fundamentalists
attempting to produce that which we have had as our deposit all along –the infallible, inerrant Word of the Living God, as He Himself promised.
Oh Christian, gird up the loins of your mind – make bare the arm!

1

Robert D. Preus. The Inspiration of Scripture, A Study of the Theology of the SeventeenthCentury Lutheran Dogmaticians, 2nd ed., (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd Ltd., 1957), p. 49.
Preus is citing Dannhauer.

193

Believing Frame of Reference

chapter 8

And it is easier for heaven and earth topass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Luke 16:17

194

IX. THE CONCLUSION OF THE MATTERTECHNICAL OVERVIEW
For nearly two hundred years, the history of textual criticism in themodern period has been the account of the breaking away from what theliberals and apostates have called the "bondage" or "tyranny"1 of the
Textus Receptus. These men have asserted that it is as foolish to rejectWestcott and Hort's theories (and retain the Textus Receptus) as it is toreject the law of gravity.2 Conversely, conservative fundamentalists3
have been accused of worshipping the King James Bible. Such an act
would, of course, be a sin were anyone actually to do so, but is it not a far
greater sin to worship Westcott and Hort? In reality, the liberals andapostates have brought us from the "bondage of the Textus Receptus andthe King James" to the bondage of Vaticanus B. All they have done isexchange one for the other, the latter being an untrue, unfaithful witness.
The problem with Hort's work is that the student is never taken with him
along the path which he followed but has to start with the acceptance ofHort's final result.4 The hostile critics have to explain how Vaticanus B
comes to oppose the sub-apostolic Fathers deliberately in many places if
we are going to accept anyone's assurance, especially Hort's, about B's
being "neutral".5 The truth is that the maligned Textus Receptus has
been the base with which B tampered and changed; the church at large
recognized this until the year 1881 when Hortism was allowed free play.6
1

Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, op. cit., p. 11.

2

Hills, Believing Bible Study, op. cit., pp. 89–91.

3

About 1910, in opposition to liberal attempts to reconcile the teachings of Christianitywith the theories of "science falsely so-called" (especially evolution), conservative
Protestants met and drew up five "fundamentals" of the faith which were insisted upon asnecessary for acceptance as being Christian. They are: (1) the infallibility and literaltruth of the Bible in every detail; (2) the virgin birth and complete deity of Christ Jesus;(3) the physical resurrection of Christ Jesus and all the dead; (4) the atoning sacrifice ofChrist Jesus for the sins of the world; and (5) the second coming of Christ Jesus in bodily
form (New Standard Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, p. 375).

4

Salmon, Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, op. cit., p. 43.

5

Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 422.

6

Ibid., p. 465.

195

The Conclusion

chapter 9

Those who accept the W-Hort text, or its modern counterpart, are placing
their faith upon an Egyptian revision which occurred somewhere from
200 to 450 A.D. and was abandoned by Bible believers all over thecivilized world between 500 to 1881 A.D.1 After the true Church buried B
and its allies through disuse, these Egyptian "mummies" were
"resurrected" in recent times and re-stamped as "genuine". Thus, themodern Church has accepted as authentic that which the early Churchrejected. Such are the ways of present day Laodicea (Rev.3:14–22).
It must be kept in mind that when God promised to preserve the text
against permanent destruction, He did not guarantee within that promise
the accuracy of each and every manuscript. Although this certainly could
have been done, it would have necessitated a continuing miracle.
Moreover, God's promise did not include the threat of His immediate
execution of the person causing an error or corruption in the copying or
production of a manuscript, whether deliberate or accidental. His
promise merely guarantees the preservation of the text.
The excuse that we needed a revision because we found older
manuscripts has been exposed as unfounded and untrue. Beyond allquestion the fact is that the Textus Receptus is the dominant GrecoSyrian text from 350 to 450 A.D.2 Since these dates go back to the time ofthe production of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus a, why is the authority ofthese two spurious MSS always being flaunted by reason of theirsupposed superior age?
Again, Hort's problem was that he had to account not only for theagreement of the majority but also for the deviations in the othermanuscripts, as well as their departures from the old versions and thevoice of the Fathers.3 We have already disclosed that there is no
historical proof of the revisions which Westcott and Hort allege. Thus, if
Westcott and Hort were wrong in their basic premise, it is necessary that
we go back prior to W-H to take up the study afresh for if the direction
were wrong then, further supposed progress would only lead us farther
from the truth.4
1

Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 468.

2

Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., pp. 116, 121.

3

Fuller, Which Bible?, op. cit., p. 147.

4

Ibid., p. 146.

196

The Conclusion

chapter 9

If there were no official Syrian text (and there could not be one without arevision as Hort rightly concluded) then there is no W-H theory.1 Thereis a traditional text, but it is not the result of an official ecclesiastical
Syrian revision. Indeed, if the theory of Syrian recensions of official text
were true, there would not be so much variety in the cursive manuscripts.
Their differences indicate that they have been copied from different
ancestors, as pointed out, and therefore they are all orphans.
Therefore, the Traditional Text and Vaticanus B cannot BOTH be theWord of God! If the Traditional Text is as ancient as Vaticanus B, andHort admitted that it was when he and Westcott wrote:2"The fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS generally isbeyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or
Graeco-Syrian text of the second half of the fourth century".
(author's emphasis)

why should the authority of one manuscript be acknowledged against ahost of manuscripts, versions, and "Fathers" which support the Textus
Bishop C. J. Ellicott, chairman of the 1881 Revision
Receptus?3
Committee, issued a pamphlet that same year in which he likewise
admitted that the Traditional or Received Text was as ancient as
Vaticanus B:4"The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part,
only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the
cursive (Byzantine) manuscripts. The general character of theirtext is the same. By this observation the pedigree of theReceived Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts
used by Erasmus ... That pedigree stretches back to a remote
antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least
contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts (i.e.,
Codices B, Aleph, A, C, and D), if not older than any one ofthem". (author's parenthesis)
1

Fuller, Which Bible?, op. cit., p. 162.

2

Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 92.

3

Fuller, Which Bible?, op. cit., p. 163.

4

Burgon, The Revision Revised, op. cit., p. 390. Although nearly all sources state that
Vaticanus B is a 4th century MSS, Dr. Scot McKindrick (Head of Western Manuscripts,
British Library, London) said in a 2008 interview that it actually looks like a 15th
century MSS because “almost the entire text has been overwritten by a 15th century
scribe”. If he is correct, then the vast bulk of TR mss are centuries older than B!

197

The Conclusion

chapter 9

As we have learned, age alone cannot prove that a manuscript is correct!
In fact, the main reasons Vaticanus B is still preserved is that it was
written on very expensive vellum (animal skins) whereas most otherdocuments of the period were written on papyrus and, having been
rejected by the Church as spurious, it was not read or copied but lay
relatively undisturbed on the library shelves of ancient monasteries.1
Sinaiticus a even shows clearly the marks of ten different correctors who
wrote upon it down through the centuries.2
As Burgon observed,3 it seems too improbable to believe that in the lastnineteen hundred years out of every thousand copies of the Greek New
Testament, we are to suppose that nine hundred and ninety-five have
proven to be untrustworthy. Moreover, that the four or five which haveremained, whose contents were unknown until as good as yesterday, aresupposed to have retained the secret which the Holy Spirit originallyinspired. Furthermore, is it not incredulous that we are expected toaccept that much of the gospel, lost to the world for nineteen centuries,
had to be "rescued" from a wastebasket to be "saved" from the consuming
fire – by a German text critic? How fortuitous.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

4

We have shown a brief history portraying the struggle between the
Church and the Biblical critics as to what constitutes a final form of the
New Testament text. An irreconcilable difference exists between the
Church and the text-critics/university with respect to the frame ofreference that each takes with regard to the "Written Word".
The Church (in its broadest sense which includes the O.T. faithful) has
historically viewed the Written Word as a "sacred" book. By sacred wemean that the text of the Book is viewed by its followers as being that offinal authority. The status of the sacred text is fixed and absolute – one
1

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., pp. 185–186.

2

Fuller, Which Bible?, op. cit., p. 163. Indeed, Tischendorf himself said A exhibited 14,800
corrections in the N.T. – more than any other Greek manuscript.

3

Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., p. 12.

4

Theodore P. Letis, "Brevard Childs and the Protestant Dogmaticians: A Window to a New
Paradigm", Bulletin of the Institute for Reformation Biblical Studies, 2:1, (Fort Wayne,
IN: 1991), pp. 4–8. Much of the material under this subtitle has been adapted bypermission from Letis' article. Dr. Letis completed his doctorate at the University of
Edinburgh (Scotland) in June of 1995.

198

The Conclusion

chapter 9does not add to or subtract from it. It is seen as sacred because the entire
content is accepted as having been given to the people as a deposit by theDeity. Until the time of the Reformation, the Bible was safely lodged
within the confines of church use and thus retained its status as "sacred".
When the Church divided into the Eastern (Greek) and Western (LatinRome) provinces, the time honored "specialness" that the Bible had heldas "sacred" text began to change. The Christian community had divided
into two very distinct entities. A Greek Vulgate (the TR) became thestandard in the Eastern Church whereas the Western branch held to theLatin Vulgate of Jerome.
Eventually the animosity which developed between the Eastern andWestern Church grew beyond mere doctrinal disputes. Each became
convinced that the manuscripts used by the other had become corrupted.
That is, as they did not always read the same, the Greeks came to
distrust the Latin Bible and the Latins were equally certain that the
Greeks had altered their texts.
Each "Bible" continued to beauthoritative for each given community, both affirming that theirs was
the true original sacred text. Thus two distinct "sacred books" emerged –yet God had given only one text.
This enmity continued and heightened until the 5th century A.D. when
the papacy restricted the flow of Greek language and literature into
Western Europe as part of its method in keeping its dominion anddistinctiveness.1 For nearly one thousand years (c.476–1453) all thetreasures of the East's classical past – its records, history, archaeology,
literature, and its science – remained un-translated and unavailable tothe West. The Greek language became a stranger to the western part ofEurope as the priests declared the study of Greek to be that of the devil,
persecuting all who promoted it.2 For the most part, the West became
exclusively Latin,3 estranged from the East. It was this persistentopposition to the achievements of the past that contributed immensely incausing a veil to fall over the West, plunging it into the Dark Ages (A.D.
476–1453). The spurious books of the Latin Vulgate opened the door forthe mysterious and for the dark doctrines which had confused the1

Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, op. cit., pp. 44–45.

2

Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus, op. cit., pp. 74, 187, 294, & 256.

3

Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 142. Albeit as the Empire broke up intomodern kingdoms, the pure Latin broke up into the Spanish Latin, French Latin, African
Latin and other dialects.

199

The Conclusion

chapter 9thinking of the ancients.1 The corruptions made to the authentic text
decreased the confidence of the people in inspiration and increased thepower of the priests. This darkness prevailed until the half century
preceding 1453 A.D. when refugees fleeing the Greek world from the floodof the Ottoman Turk invaders came west bringing with them theirlanguage, literature, and culture.2
During this period of separation, division and isolation, the "Bible" wasinterpreted, copied and distributed as the unique possession of the
Church by churchmen (monks, priests, bishops) within each of the two
communities – with the firm resolve that each was working with sacred
text. Although this continued into the 18th century until the time when
the Enlightenment ripped ("liberated" from their perspective) the Biblicaltexts from the domain of the Church, it was in the 16th century that theChristian humanist, Desiderius Erasmus – himself a disaffected priest,
decisively disrupted the canon and text of the Western Church.3
Erasmus replaced it with the Greek N.T. canon and text of the Eastern
Church, thus setting in motion a process that by the nineteenth century
culminated in the loss of the Bible as a sacred text in the RomanLatin West. The end result was that the Bible came to be viewed merely
as a "religious" book.
By "religious book" we mean a book which still retains a "traditional
specialness", but it has lost its status as sacred. The reason this has
happened is that the text has been removed from the ecclesiasticalmatrix. Its interpretations and dimensions (the canon) are no longer
determined exclusively by churchmen and theologians. Having been
removed from its natural home and haven within the confines of the
Church, its interpretation now becomes subject to the critics/university
rather than the Church. In this new matrix, the Bible text is seen as
merely that of a piece of world literature – nothing more. Here, it is nolonger viewed by its reader as decisively authoritative and sacred text. In
capsule, this is the entire problem before the Church.
This tension, between the Bible as ecclesiastical text and as the text of
the University, cries out back to the words of Tertullian (160–230 A.D.),"What indeed hath Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there
1

Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, op. cit., p. 50.

2Ibid., p. 44.

3

Letis, "Brevard Childs and the Protestant Dogmaticians", op. cit., p. 4.

200

The Conclusion

chapter 9

between the Academy and the Church?"1 Tertullian would surely dismay
to learn that since the nineteenth century the Academy has completely
prevailed over the Church with regard to the Biblical text. The result has
been an eclipse of Biblical narrative and the arrival of a strange bizarre
silence of the Bible in the Church.2
Biblical scholars working in concert with publishing companies, neitherof which answers to any ecclesiastical authority within the Church, havetaken the Bible away from the people. Through their endless writingsand promotions, they have convinced many in the community of
believers, pastors included, that only they can truly appreciate andunderstand the Bible. They infer that they are the only ones who candetermine what it means. Does not this arrogance resemble a giant leap
back to the Catholic position from whence the Reformation sprang? Did
the dauntless Reformers work, endure persecution and die in vain?
Of course, unlike the great whore of Rome with its Pope for final decision
making, no consensus has emerged from the critics/university explaining
what the Bible means as only a "religious" book. To the contrary, the text
is in a state of continuous flux, vacillating between the opinions ofenormous egos. In this rarefied atmosphere on the edge of Olympus,
every man does "that which" is "right in his own eyes" (Jud.21:25).
It is no longer a matter of the different methods used by Church andAcademy in studying the Bible; it is a matter of totally different views
and goals. This has resulted in a revolt (within the Academy as well!)over the loss of sacred text and a call to again recognize the Bible as abook sui generis (unique, in a class all its own).3 It is time for the Church
to reclaim its God-given deposit. The Bible is the Church's book! This
must begin at the grass roots – laymen to the fore if our shepherds
continue to sleep, intimidated by so-called science (I Tim.6:20), respecting
men's person – unwilling to humble their intellects before God and standin faith.
Such will not be an easy matter apart from intervention from the Lord.
The Academy is awake and determined to keep the theologians fromquietly "stealing" their Bible back fearing that the Church will again
1Ante-Nicene Fathers, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 246.

2

Letis, "Brevard Childs and the Protestant Dogmaticians", op. cit., p. 5. The reader isreminded that Dr. Letis is the source for the material under this current heading.

3

Ibid, p. 6.

201

The Conclusion

chapter 9

shroud it in medieval-like canonical authority, in the name of "Biblicaltheology".
Thus there has been a transition from the Bible as sacred text depositedand lodged in the bosom of the Church, to the Bible as viewed as only
religious text – and just as firmly centered in the University. The
rejection of the Latin Vulgate, the sacred text of the medieval Roman
Catholic Church, by Erasmus and Valla1 as being corrupt gutted the
Vulgate of sacred status.2 Rome countered with decrees at Trent (1546)
relevant to Jerome's Vulgate in an effort to recapture its standing as
sacred text. When by the nineteenth century this failed, the Trent
undertaking was, in effect, replaced by the 1870 Vatican I decree which
conferred infallibility to the Pope.3
As a result of this ongoing struggle which had its inception at the divisionof the "Christian" community into the Eastern and Western entities andthe ensuing developments to which we have alluded, the war continues.
It has merely shifted alignments. Rather than East versus West, it has
evolved into battles between the Church and the Academy in determining
what constitutes the correct New Testament text.

TEXT CRITICISM TODAY – THE AGE OF MINISCULES

4

It may come as a surprise, but only a relative few of the 3,000 plus
manuscripts now cataloged have been collated (to collect, compare
carefully in order to verify and often to integrate).5 The same is true
1

Lorenzo Valla (c.1406–1457) was an ordained Italian priest, perhaps the most brilliant
mind of the Renaissance. He was one of the first exponents of modern historicalcriticism. Utilizing those skills, he exposed the spurious character of the "Donation ofConstantine" – a document allegedly proving that Constantine had given central Italy
over to papal control when he moved the Roman capital to the East. Valla demonstrated
the Donation was an 8th century forgery and thus could not be used to support papal
claims to temporal power. This exposé also contained a bitter attack on the temporal
power of the Papacy. He undertook a critical comparison between the Latin Vulgate and
the Greek N.T. Valla had a deep influence on Renaissance scholars as well as theReformers, especially Erasmus and Martin Luther.

2

Letis, p. 7 in a December 1988 formal correspondence to this author in which he outlined
his doctoral dissertation approach.

3

Ibid.

4

Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, op. cit., pp. 4–27. Much of
the data included under this subtitle has been taken from Moorman's excellent
publication.

5

Ibid., p. 4.

202

The Conclusion

chapter 9

concerning the 2,143 extant lectionaries. Such collation has been limited
to the papyri fragments, older uncials, and those cursives which givesome support for the Alexandrian (a-B) text. Except for a few cursory
checks, the vast majority has been ignored. The reason is that theoverwhelming majority of manuscripts supports the TR/KJB; and seeking
out any further support is the last thing in which textual criticism isinterested. Westcott and Hort certainly were not interested in giving the
majority the opportunity to speak. They wove their theory around only afew MSS, and of these they had but second hand knowledge. They
collated no manuscripts themselves, but rather applied themselves to thestudy of collations and apparatuses made by others.1 As a result, theirknowledge of the documents was second-hand and partial. Hort knew ofthe existence of fewer than 1,000 cursives, and only c.150 of these wereavailable to him in complete collation.2
Since Hort, around 1,800 cursives have been found. Again, apart from acursory glance to see if there might be some readings supportive of the aB category of text, they have been merely cataloged and ignored.
Attention instead has centered on the comparatively few papyri
fragments and what to do when they disagree with a and B. Indeed,
Kurt Aland has admitted "... the main problem in N.T. textual criticism
lies in the fact that little more than their actual existence is known ofmost of the manuscripts ... ".3 However, minuscules must pass a "test"
before Aland and other critics consider them worthy of inclusion in a
textual apparatus. All MSS/mss which are generally Byzantine will fail.4
The issue of the presence of grammatical smoothness has even been used
as an argument against the TR and Byzantine mss in general. The critics
maintain that the TR and its supporting mss, reading in as flowing astyle as they do, "reflect editorial revision designed to improve the flow
and syntax". Textual criticism has long implied that the rougher thegrammar, the more likely a variant reading is to be the original.5 But
1

Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., pp. 77–78, 144.

2

Frederik Wisse, The Profile Method for Classifying and Evaluating Manuscript Evidence,(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 2.

3

Kurt Aland, "The Significance of the Papyri", op. cit., p. 330.

4

Wisse, The Profile Method for Classifying and Evaluating Manuscript Evidence, op. cit.,
p. 4.

5

Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, op. cit., p. 20.

203

The Conclusion

chapter 9

why must the Holy Spirit be accused of using rough grammar? Did not
the Divine Author in inspiring the words and sentences of Scripture know
how to use proper Greek? Are we to understand that His knowledge hassince "evolved?"
For the critic, the nineteenth century was the age of the uncials; the midtwentieth century was the age of the papyri, but now he is entering theage of the minuscules.1 However, when one reads that many morecursives are being cited in the latest Nestle-Aland Greek N.T., he should
not be deceived into believing that a significant shift away from theAlexandrian text has taken place. What the present "age of theminuscules" really means to the editors of the critical text is that they
hope to find a little more support for the a/B/Alexandrian family of text.
As a matter of fact, they did not find much support during their "age ofthe uncials". Further, despite initial promise, the "age of the papyri" hasbecome something of an embarrassment for their cause. Thus insofar asfinding anything that would even remotely strengthen their case for thea-B text from the manuscripts, this "age of the minuscules" is their lasthope. So despite any appearance to the contrary or talk of being eclectic –Aleph, B, and their few allies still dictate the modern critical text. The
feeling still prevails that no purpose would be served in giving the
majority a greater voice.
For the text critics, these old uncials are more than adequate
representatives of the MS tradition to the extent that the rest can beignored. After all, they challenge us, "why start more than thirteen
centuries after the autographs were written, and wade back throughliterally thousands of MSS in an immensely complicated and expensive
process, if at best one can only arrive at a fifth-century text which isalready well represented by copies of that time".2 This argument forms
the background for all those who consider it justifiable to ignore all, or atleast nearly all, of the minuscules (cursives).
The only argument which would justifiably allow the critics to circumventthe task of studying all the late mss would be that there exists among theearly uncials a relatively uncorrupted tradition which shows all other1

Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, op. cit., p. 5; here Moormancites from the Nestle-Aland 26th edition, pp. 47–48.

2

Wisse, The Profile Method for Classifying and Evaluating Manuscript Evidence, op. cit.,
pp. 1–2.

204

The Conclusion

chapter 9

text-types of the period to be secondary and corrupted.1 Only if thisposition can be proved, and if it is clear from some sampling that late mss
fall predominantly in the tradition of one of the corrupted texts, could
they justify the omission of a full study of these late minuscules. Yet aand B, the two main pillars of the critical text, exhibit 3,036 clear
differences in the Gospels; what candidate can they propose as a"relatively uncorrupted tradition"? They have none! Yet they continue tokeep the TR/KJB dishonestly shrouded – out of public sight, without
giving all of the witnesses an opportunity to speak.2
The point that we wish to make clear at this occasion is that anyone who
seeks to gather Byzantine manuscript evidence from the standard
sources (Alford, Tischendorf, Souter, Merk, Vogels, Nestle, Aland, or vonSoden) is really getting only a few scraps from the table.3 The interestsand energies of these men have been expended elsewhere. Their laborswith regard to the great mass of Byzantine mss have been limited tothose places where there has been departure from the TR.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
Recently, some well meaning brothers have attempted to allow the mss avoice by utilizing the massive 1913 work of Hermann von Soden to assist
them in producing a "Majority Text". However, von Soden's enterpriserepresents only a very small portion of the total. He merely made acursory sampling of the vast numbers of mss. Moreover Herman C.
Hoskier thoroughly documented that while hoping to find "great things"
from von Soden's final volume he was forced, albeit regrettably, to have tostrongly condemn it. Hoskier stated that the work was not only
"honeycombed" with errors, many documents which should have beenrecollated had not been touched whereas others were only partially sodone with many others having been incorrectly handled.4
Wisse informs us that von Soden collated a significant number of MSS
only partially. After his test check on a weighty portion of von Soden's
1

Wisse, The Profile Method for Classifying and Evaluating Manuscript Evidence, op. cit.,
p. 2.

2

Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, op. cit., p. 7.

3

Ibid., p. 11.

4

Herman C. Hoskier, The Journal of Theological Studies, 15, (London: Oxford University
Press, 1914), p. 307. Hoskier continues over the next 20 pages documenting a mostwithering indictment.

205

The Conclusion

chapter 9

data, Frederik Wisse adds "Once the extent of error is seen, the word'inaccuracy' becomes a euphemism. ... von Soden's inaccuracies cannot betolerated for any purpose. His apparatus is useless for a reconstruction of
the text of the mss he used".1 It is worthy of mention that, although vonSoden viewed the Byzantine text as being un-derived from and possiblyas old as Aleph-B (a departure from standard W-H dogma), in all othermatters he was so strongly Alexandrian that Hoskier reported: "vonSoden's text is so thoroughly Alexandrian that it falls into line with Hort,
irrespective of MS evidence".2
By now we trust that our reader can discern that our extant manuscripts
reflect but do not determine the text of Scripture.3 The text wasdetermined by God from the beginning (Psa.119:89 etc.). After the adventof printing (A.D. 1450), the necessity of God's preserving the manuscript
witness to the text was diminished. Thus, in some few instances, themajority of MSS/mss extant today may not reflect at every point what thetrue, commonly accepted, and majority reading was 500 years ago. The
Greek manuscripts do not constitute the sole viable witness to the true
text of the New Testament.
Were we verifying the preserved text, the ancient versions, lectionaries,
and quotes from the Fathers would also have to be taken into account.
Hence, we should not be surprised to find that the Spirit of God
occasionally used the Latin West for corroboration on a disputed reading.4
After all, if we went strictly by the majority of the extant Greek mss wewouldn't be able to include the Book of Revelation in the canon, for only
one in fifty MSS/mss contains it. There was a bias against the book in
the Greek speaking East, thus it was not used in the lectionary services.
Again, the reason that all defenders of the TR since the Reformation
follow the majority text is because it reflects the actual usage by the
Church (the body of believers in all ages) which Jesus promised to lead
into all truth, not merely because of statistical "superiority" or"probability". To not grasp or comprehend this leaves the reader with a1

Wisse, The Profile Method for Classifying and Evaluating Manuscript Evidence, op. cit.,
pp. 16–17.

2

Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 461.

3

Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, op. cit., p. 27.

4

Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, op. cit., p. 27. Also see:Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., pp. 200–203.

206

The Conclusion

chapter 9"tentative" Bible. Even opponents freely admit this conclusively decisive
point. For example, Professor Kurt Aland forthrightly grants:1"It is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century
orthodoxy's doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed ... [the]Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they
regarded it as the 'original text'".

Professor Merrill M. Parvis of Harvard penned:"The Textus Receptus is not the 'true' text of the New Testament ..."

but then incredulously went on to concede:2"It [the TR] was the Scripture of many centuries of the Church's
life. ... The Textus Receptus is the text of the Church. It isthat form of text which represents the sum total and the end
product of all the textual decisions which were made by the
Church and her Fathers over a period of more than a thousand
years". (author's emphasis)

These candid admissions by such leading scholars of the opposing view
underscore and confirm our entire thesis – that the Textus Receptus
always has been the N.T. used by the true Church! Indeed, this has
recently been conclusively proven by a remarkable piece of new
manuscript evidence.
Three tiny fragments of uncial codex which were acquired in Luxor,
Egypt in 1901 and donated to Magdalen College in Oxford, England had
been preserved in its library in a butterfly display case. Dated c.A.D.
180–200 in 1953, both sides of the Magdalen Papyrus (the largest piece is
15/8" by ½") exhibit Greek script from the 26th chapter of Matthew.
In 1994, these fragments came to the attention of the German biblicalscholar and papyrologist Dr. Carsten Peter Thiede (Director of theInstitute for Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany).
Painstakingly re-dating the scraps, Dr. Thiede placed them at A.D. 66 –the only known first century N.T. text extant.3
1

Kurt Aland, "The Text Of The Church?", Trinity Journal 8 (Fall 1987): p. 131.

2

Merrill M. Parvis, "The Goals Of New Testament Textual Studies", Studia Evangelica 6(1973): p. 406.

3

Carsten P. Thiede & Matthew D'Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus, (New York: Doubleday,
1996), pp. 124–125. Dr. Thiede's findings appeared in a sensational front-page story of
the December 24, 1994 (Christmas Eve) edition of the London Times.

207

The Conclusion

chapter 9

But this was only the beginning. Using an eipflourescent confocal laser
scanning microscope, Dr. Thiede found that fragment 3 (recto) revealed
the TR/KJB reading from Matthew 26:22, "hekastos auton" – every one ofthem – rather than "heis hekastos" – each one [in turn one after the other]– as all the various critical texts read!1 Thus this fragment now
documents the antiquity of the TR/KJB text to the time of Peter, Paul,John the Apostle, as well as some of the 500 witnesses of our Lord's
resurrection (I Cor.15:4–8) – and extends Nolan's finds beyond A.D. 157(see page 169) back to A.D. 66.
Neither should it be imagined that Dr. Thiede was motivated to arrive atthese conclusions because he is a TR supporter; he is not. As apapyrologist and having hard physical data in hand, he was not
intimidated to abandon his new textual discoveries because they
conflicted with the presuppositions and conjectural theories of New
Testament textual scholars. Facts, you see, are stubborn things.
However this brings us to ask: Since the texts of the TR and T.T. are
identical twin brothers,2 why did Burgon only defend the T.T.; why did
not Burgon "contend for the acceptance of the Textus Receptus"3 whereas
Hills (Waite, Letis, this author etc.) did? (Both men did advocate"retaining" the TR but for different reasons and purposes.)
Hills best explains the reason for the disparity between himself andBurgon's views by calling attention that Burgon (as well as Prebendarys
Scrivener and Edward Miller) was not a Protestant but a High-Church
Anglican.4 As such, Burgon believed in infant baptism and apostolic
succession.
The latter meaning that only bishops who had been
1

Thiede, Eyewitness to Jesus, pp. 59–60. These results were presented at the 21st
Congress of the International Papyrologists' Association in Berlin August, 15, 1995, andmet with "unanimous approval" (p. 61). Dr. Thiede adds that the precise nuance cannot
be rendered in English: the Magdalen text emphasizes they were all speaking at once – arealistic portrayal of a dramatic moment with its accompanying excitement. But thestandard critical text reads such that they spoke one after the other, waiting their turn inan orderly fashion (p. 60). Thus this original reading which was always preferable basedon internal criteria is now corroborated by the oldest papyrus of Matthew's Gospel (p. 60).

2

Except for the infrequent instances where the T.T has missing text (i.e., I Joh.5:7–8; Acts
7:37, 8:37, 9:5–6; Luk.17:36; Mat.5:27, 27:35; Heb.2:7, 11:13 etc.), the TR and T.T. exhibit
only minor insignificant differences.

3

Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 415; also see: Burgon, The Revision
Revised, op. cit., pp. 107, 372, 373, 392.

4

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 192.

208

The Conclusion

chapter 9

consecrated by earlier bishops and so on back in an unbroken chain to thefirst bishops who had been set aside as such by the laying on of the handsof the Apostles were the true and only instruments that God would use in
Church matters. This world view caused him great annoyance over thefact that, although about two thirds of the New Testament Revision
Committee were also Anglican1 (Church of England; most of whom were
liberal), the southern convocation had allowed a few Baptist, Methodist,and other "separatists" (not to mention Vance Smith, a Unitarian who
had in writing denied the deity of Jesus2) to participate.3 It was, in fact,
1

The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, Henry Snyder Gehman, ed., (Phil., PA: The
Westminster Press, 1970), p. 981. Indeed, the Church of England and its Universities at
Oxford and Cambridge were rife with men who had long denied the infallibility of
Scripture. These were eager to acclaim a textual theory in harmony with their views.
The liberalness of the Revision Committee can hardly be appreciated today. For example,
the chairman, Bishop Ellicott, believed there were clear tokens of corruptions in the
Authorized Version (Charles John Ellicott, Addresses on the Revised Version of Holy
Scripture, (New York: E.S. Gorham, 1901), p. 70), and Dean Stanley openly confessedthat the Pentateuch was not the work of Moses and that the Biblical narratives contained
therein were not infrequently "colored" due to the imperfections of the men who wrote
them (Arthur P. Stanley, Essays Chiefly on Questions of Church and State from 1850 to1870, (London: John Murray, 1884), pp. 329–330). He further believed that the Word of
God resided in the sacred books of other religions, as well in the Bible (Essays, p. 24).
Bishop Thirlwall retired from the committee and refused to return until the Unitarian,Dr. Vance Smith, was allowed a seat at communion (see following fn. "Samuel Hemphill,
A History").

2

Samuel Hemphill, A History of the Revised Version of the N.T., (London: E. Stock, 1906),
pp. 36–37. When on 22 June of 1870 the "1881" revisers came together to initiate theirwork, a communion service (suggested by Westcott) was held in Westminster Abbey.
Arthur Westcott, son of B.F. Westcott, recorded that his father and Hort insisted upon
the inclusion of the Unitarian scholar, Dr. Vance Smith. The upper house of theConvocation of Canterbury had passed a resolution that no person denying the deity of
Christ should take part in the work, yet Smith had so done in his book Bible and
Theology. Westcott's son states: "The Revision was almost wrecked at the very outset",and quotes his father in a note to Hort as threatening to sever his connection with the
project (as did others!) if Smith were not allowed to participate: "If the Company accept
the dictation of Convocation, my work must end". (A. Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke
Foss Westcott, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 394). Arthur mentions more than once that his father
was often considered "unorthodox", "unsound", or "unsafe" (i.e., A. Westcott, Life andLetters of Brooke Foss Westcott, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 218). After receiving Holy Communionwith his fellow-revisers, Smith later commented that he did not join in reciting the
Nicene Creed or in any way compromise his principles as a Unitarian (Burgon, The
Revision Revised, op. cit., p. 507). The English people were infuriated by Smith's
inclusion (Ibid.). It may be argued that it is unfair, irrelevant or even an ad hominem toaddress the liberal theological views of W&H with regard to their textual theory, but aman's world view and the frames of reference that view engenders inevitably bear upon
his attitude toward the Sacred Writ.

3

Burgon, The Revision Revised, op. cit., pp. 504–505.

209

The Conclusion

chapter 9this High-Church Anglicanism which led Burgon to place so muchemphasis on the N.T. quotations of the Church Fathers, most of whom
had been bishops.1 For him, these quotations were vital because they
proved that the Traditional Text found in the vast majority of the Greek
manuscripts had been authorized from the very beginning by bishops ofthe early Church.
However, this high Anglican position betrayed Burgon when he came todeal with the printed Greek N.T. text for from the Reformation times
down to his own day the Greek text favored by the bishops of the Churchof England had been the Textus Receptus – and the TR had not been
prepared by bishops but by Erasmus who had not been a bishop but was
an independent scholar. Thus Erasmus, and his Greek edition, did notalign with Burgon's High-Church stance on apostolic succession andauthority.2 Still worse for Burgon was the fact that the particular form of
the Textus Receptus used in the Church of England was the third editionof Stephanus – and Stephanus was a Calvinist.3
Hills came to many of the same conclusions that Burgon had reached, but
being a conservative Presbyterian and trained in the classics at Yale witha doctorate in N.T. textual criticism from Harvard, his frame of reference
was that of a true heir of the Reformation.4 Thus, rather than to theHigh-Church argument of apostolic succession as a guarantee of the text's
fidelity, Hills appealed to the affirmation of the PresbyterianWestminster Confession of Faith. This Confession sanctioned the Textus
Receptus as being the Greek text which bore the mark of historiccontinuity and as having been preserved in its integrity within theChristian Church itself – hence it must be the providentially preservedtrue text (WC 1:8). Moreover, this was the very position of the Protestantdogmaticians, both Lutheran and Reformed, ever since the seventeenth
century.5
1

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 192.

2

Letis, The Majority Text, op. cit., p. 5.

3Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 192.

4

Theodore P. Letis, "The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the Claims of the
Anabaptist", Calvinism Today, Vol. II, no. 3, (North Yorkshire, England: July 1992),
p. 11.

5

Letis, "The Protestant Dogmaticians" op. cit., pp. 1–19. By "Protestant dogmatician" Dr.
Letis means the "much maligned heirs of Luther and Calvin from the post-Reformation
era of the 17th-century" (see his p. 1).

210

The Conclusion

chapter 9

Hills convincingly argued that, from a believing consistently Christian
standpoint, Burgon's (and all other) position was illogical as anyone
believing in providential preservation of the N.T. text must accept anddefend the Textus Receptus since it is the only form in which the
Traditional Text has actually circulated in print. Moreover, that todecline to defend the TR implies that God preserved a pure text all
during the manuscript period but for some unexplained reason left thispure text "hiding in the manuscripts and allowed an inferior text to issue
from the printing press and circulate among His people for more than 450
years".1
Realizing that the only bridge that would take us back beyond the extant
MSS/mss of the majority text – the fourth century – to the lost
autographa was Providential Preservation, Hills correctly saw theabsolute necessity for a theological element in determining the Text.2
Hills thereby concludes (as does this author) that when we believe in andreceive Christ Jesus, the logic of faith first leads us to a belief in theinfallible inspiration of the original Scriptures.3 This is followed by abelief in the providential preservation of this original text down throughthe ages and thence to a belief in the Bible text current among believers
as the providentially preserved original text. This is the "common faith"
which has always been present among the Church of the Living God.
Indeed, Hills summarizes it best:4"But if the providential preservation of the Scriptures is notimportant, why is the doctrine of the infallible inspiration of theoriginal Scriptures important? If God has not preserved the
Scriptures by His special providence, why would He haveinfallibly inspired them in the first place? And if it is notimportant that the Scriptures be regarded as infallibly inspired,
why is it important to insist that the Gospel is completely true?
And if this is not important, why is it important to believe that
Jesus is the divine Son of God? In short, unless we follow the
logic of faith, we can be certain of nothing concerning the Bible
and its text".

1

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 192.

2

Letis, The Majority Text, op. cit., p. 9.

3Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 192.

4

Ibid., p. 225.

211

The Conclusion

chapter 9

Dr. Hills further illustrated what he meant by his term "the logic offaith":1"For example, how do we know that the Textus Receptus is thetrue New Testament text? We know this through the logic offaith. Because the Gospel is true, the Bible which contains thisGospel was infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit. And because
the Bible was infallibly inspired, it has been preserved by God's
special providence. Moreover, this providential preservation
was not done privately in secret holes and caves but publicly inthe usage of God's Church. Hence the true New Testament text
is found in the majority of the New Testament manuscripts.
And this providential preservation did not cease with theinvention of printing. Hence the formation of the Textus
Receptus was God-guided.
"And how do we know that the King James Version is a faithfultranslation of the true New Testament text? We know this also
through the logic of faith. Since the formation of the Textus
Receptus was God-guided, the translation of it was God-guided
also. For as the Textus Receptus was being formed, it was also
being translated. The two processes were simultaneous. Hencethe early Protestant versions, such as Luther's, Tyndale's, theGeneva, and the King James, were actually varieties of the
Textus Receptus. And this was necessarily so according to theprinciples of God's preserving providence. For the Textus
Receptus had to be translated in order that the universal
priesthood of believers, the rank and file, might give it their
God-guided approval". (author's emphasis)

Farther along, Dr. Hills continued:2"This faith, however, has from time to time been distorted by the
intrusion of unbiblical ideas. For example, many Jews and early
Christians believed that the inspiration of the Old Testament
had been repeated three times. According to them, not only had
the original Old Testament writers been inspired but also Ezra,
who (supposedly) rewrote the whole Old Testament after it had
been lost. And the Septuagint likewise, they maintained, hadbeen infallibly inspired.
Also the Roman Catholics havedistorted the common faith by their false doctrine that theauthority of the Scriptures rests on the authority of the Church.
1

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., pp. 113–114.

2

Ibid., p. 194.

212

The Conclusion

chapter 9

It was this erroneous view that led the Roman Church to adopt
the Latin Vulgate rather than the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures
as its authoritative Bible. And finally, many conservative
Christians today distort the common faith by their adherence tothe theories of naturalistic New Testament textual criticism.
They smile at the legends concerning Ezra and the Septuagint,
but they themselves have concocted a myth even more absurd,
namely, that the true New Testament text was lost for morethan 1,500 years and then restored by Westcott and Hort".
(author's parenthesis)

Yet despite the efforts on behalf of the Church by Burgon, Scrivener,
Hoskier, and – in the twentieth century – Hills, recently we have beenplaced in the bizarre situation of noting that whereas our opponents
blasphemously assert that the TR/KJB New Testament is wrong in atleast 5,300 instances – many of our Christian friends now say, "No, it errs
only about 1,500 times". Thus many good brothers in Christ Jesus havebeen seduced into siding with the liberals and/or apostates as both
positions embrace "restoration" rather than "preservation". Truly, such isa deplorable state! Worthy of the most deliberate consideration is the
proposition that anytime the entire world system agrees with theChristian about any matter which is spiritual or has spiritual overtones –not only are we wrong – the error is nearly always 180 degrees out ofphase with God's truth.
Moreover, the single greatest move of the hand of God since the time of
the Lord Jesus and the Apostles as recorded in the Book of Acts was thatof the Reformation. This great move must be recognized as the direct
result of the historical restoration by Erasmus of the true text that the
Apostles lived and wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
The reader must then confront himself with the question: "If theReformation were the fruit of restoring to the people the text known
today as the Textus Receptus, where is the great revival that should haveaccompanied the labor of the past 100 years of text-critically editing andcorrecting that document?" The "Great Awakening" of the 1700's as wellas the revivals of the late 1800's and early part of the 1900's under men
such as Wesley, Whitefield, Finney, Spurgeon, Moody, R.A. Torrey, andBilly Sunday were all preached from the King James text.
To the contrary, we know of no real revival that resulted from using thecritical text. Thus we see that the fruit of the TR/KJB has been theharvest of millions of souls. In stark contrast, the fruit of the critical text

213

The Conclusion

chapter 9

and its offspring has been doubt, division, endless debate, wasted timeand energy that could have been spent in worship or evangelical effort,
and the destruction of the faith at most seminaries along with many
pastors and the sheep who feed at their feet. If the critical text is thebetter text, where are the great revivals that should have followed thisenterprise? Does not this hard historical truth bear irrefutable testimony
as to which text the Spirit of God has endorsed and stamped genuine – tothat which He breathed man-ward?
Patient reader, in the previous pages we have proclaimed that thedefense of the King James Bible and its Greek foundation, the Textus
Receptus, has been the very least of concern within the realm of Textual
Criticism. Almost all its energy has been toward "reconstructing" thetext on the basis of a few old uncials, and ferreting out what little support
can be gleaned for these MSS.
It is not intended by the author to imply that the theological views of
Burgon or Hills automatically make their text critical views correct orthat those of Origen, Westcott, Hort, etc. necessarily make them wrong.
Nevertheless up to the time of W & H, the uniform Protestant consensus(of course, there were some dissenters) can be summed by Quenstedt
who, in the 1600's stated:1"We believe, as is our duty, that the providential care of God has
always watched over the original and primitive texts of thecanonical Scriptures in such a way that we can be certain thatthe sacred codices which we now have in our hands are thosewhich existed at the time of Jerome and Augustine, nay at thetime of Christ Himself and His apostles". (author's italics)

Moreover, before the time of W-H: "the 'lower criticism' had kept itself
quite apart from the so-called dangerous 'higher criticism'. Since thepublication of Hort's text, however, and that of the Revisers, much of theheresy of our time has fallen back upon the supposed results acquired by
the 'lower criticism' to bolster up their views".2
It cannot be over stressed that just as the LORD used the Hebrew
community to preserve the Old Testament Scriptures as He hadoriginally given to them in that selfsame language (i.e., the Hebrew
Masoretic text), even so the instrument by which GOD has preserved the1Preus, The Inspiration of Scripture, op. cit., p. 139.

2

Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 421–422.

214

The Conclusion

chapter 9

New Testament text has been the Greek-speaking community. In fact,
until 1904 the Textus Receptus was the official New Testament of the
Greek Orthodox Church – this was for a span of nearly 400 years!1
We purport that the various editions of the Textus Receptus are theoverall framework within which providential preservation has operated.
We affirm that all the words of the inspired New Testament Scriptures
are to be found within this framework. We proclaim that the work of thevarious editors – Erasmus, Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs – was theresult of God's providence in stabilizing the TR as a settled entity.
Hence, no further revision of the Greek wording is needed as God,through His providence, has settled the text. Further, we have seen thatthe dark ages truly began with the Greek text of Westcott and Hort
(Origen-Eusebius) which was published by Jerome in 405 A.D., and ended
with the 1516 publication of the Greek text of Erasmus.
The single most enduring charge that has been leveled against the TR
which persists to this day is that Erasmus had to use the Latin Vulgate
for the last six verses in the final chapter of the Book of Revelation(although Hoskier, the greatest authority on these mss, doubted this).
Yet even were this conceded, what doctrines are at risk with regard to thevariant readings here? None. Indeed, Erasmus was using an edition
which had been produced "from an ancient Greek exemplar representing
a text from at least as far back as the third century when he employed
the Vulgata for these last few verses. Unlike the Egyptian uncials, no1

Confirmed by a 1991 phone call with Archbishop Geron Iakovos, then Patriarchate ofNorth America, who told me their text had been kept via apostolic succession and that,aside from spelling & type set errors, their mss read exactly as Erasmus' 1522 3rd edition.
However, in 2009 I learned that in 1902 the Greek Church succumbed in part due topressure from text critics and sent a committee to Mt. Athos, Greece to "re-establish theold text according to the tradition of the Church of Constantinople". Although many msswere taken west while the Byzantine Empire was falling to the Ottoman Turks (fell in1453), most of the Greek NT mss still remain at the Great Monastery of Mt. Athos. The
Mt. Athos committee is said to have consulted about 20 Byzantine manuscripts, but its
spokesperson (professor B. Antoniades of the Theological School of Chalki) stated that, inthe main, the foundation of their 1904 edition was based on 116 lectionaries. This official
1904 New Testament text of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has about
2,000 variations with the critical text as well as nearly 2,000 with the Textus Receptus.
Having recently translated the 1904 edition into English, Peter Papoutsis states that –other than the Apocalypse – all variations between the 1904 text and the Textus Receptus
are "extremely minimal". Furthermore, the Greek Church still maintains that: "The KingJames Version is the most reliable and faithful English translation" (Greek Orthodox
Diocese of Denver Bulletin, March 1995, Vol. 3, Number 3, pp.14-17). In our 1991 interview, Archbishop Iakovos gave the same testimony as to the King James’ faithfulness.

215

The Conclusion

chapter 9

doctrine is at stake whatsoever. The meaning is not even altered".1
Indeed, till 1904 the Greek Church verified the text of these six verses.
Any small variations among the editions of the Textus Receptus, otherthan typographical errors, should be indicated in the center column offuture editions. The critic's allegation that God has not preserved every
word of the inspired N.T. text solely in the TR is an un-provable anduntruthful assertion. The Christian needs a firmer foundation than theever shifting consensus of scholarly opinion upon which to anchor his
faith. Only the existence of a continuously preserved, providentiallydetermined text provides such a basis. The Textus Receptus alone affords
such a cornerstone.
The Christian must come to grips with and understand that a purely
rational totally scientific method of dealing with the problems inherent
with the text of Scripture can never really produce the desired result forin the ultimate sense, we can never demonstrate the agreement between
the Textus Receptus and the original manuscripts since the originals havenot survived to our day. Thus, once again, Hills' "logic of faith" is the only
method that can bridge the gap back to the autographs.
However, it must be recognized that the same must be said for the
majority or Traditional Text. Indeed, the hostile critics are themselves inthe same predicament; none can compare their favored readings to theoriginal in order to establish its superiority.2 Inevitably we must"receive" the Received Text. The Church is utterly dependent upon God's
providential preservation of the text. Moreover, the Reformers did not
distinguish between the text they actually possessed and the originals.
They believed they had the original wording preserved by the "singularcare and providence" of God (See the Philadelphia Confession on thisauthor's p. 81). Truly, the entire matter may be summarized by thewords of the late Dr. D.O. Fuller:3"If you and I believe that the original writings of the Scriptures
were verbally inspired by God, then of necessity they must havebeen providentially preserved through the ages".

1

Letis, "A Reply to the Remarks of Mark A. McNeil", op. cit., p. 4.

2

Douglas Taylor, "A Special Look at Appendix C", Bible League Quarterly, (Northampton,
England: The Bible League Trust, Oct.–Dec., 1990), p. 379.

3

Fuller, Which Bible?, op. cit., p. 147.

216

The Conclusion

chapter 9

For those of us who comprehend and submit to the truth and logic
embodied in this singular quote, there remains absolutely no need for
textual criticism.
Colwell himself acknowledged as much:1"It is often assumed by the ignorant and uninformed – even on auniversity campus – that textual criticism of the New Testament
is supported by a superstitious faith in the Bible as a bookdictated in miraculous fashion by God. That is not true.
Textual criticism has never existed for those whose New
Testament is one of miracle, mystery, and authority. A New
Testament created under those auspices would have been
handed down under them and would have no need of textual
criticism".

Of course Colwell goes on to assure his reader that as such is not thecase, and that textual criticism is a most necessary tool in determining
the "best" New Testament.2
The next question is, which of the modern versions – if any – reflects theoriginal autographic wording in English? Without hesitation, we say that
the King James "Version" is that entity. It is "the Bible" in the English
language. Yet strangely when this and the overall message contained inthis manuscript has been shared and explained by the author (as well as
by others, present or past), the reaction from the vast majority of readers
or listeners – whether laymen, pastors or professors – has been sobewildering and unexplainable. Not seeming to comprehend that help
and warning are being offered rather than "criticism", most become very
defensive and often irritated. A pall of apathy overshadows the subject.
This is indeed a troubling tragedy in the extreme.
Yet, as things stand we are left in the strange circumstance whereby
everyone is permitted and encouraged to come to the religion classroom,
Bible study, Sunday School class, Church service, etc., all bearing
different "textbooks". Such is never tolerated or practiced in any otherlearning situation. University professors of English, Chemistry, Physics,
Mathematics, History, etc., do not permit such a practice for they well
1

Colwell, What is the Best New Testament? op. cit., p. 8. This quote is typical of themodern critic's low view of Scripture.

2

Ibid., p. 9. Notice Colwell does not say the "true" or "original" N.T. but merely the "best".
Like those listed on pp. 131, he obviously neither believed the original text had beenpreserved nor that it could ever be fully recovered.

217

The Conclusion

chapter 9know the chaotic situation that would result. An atmosphere for reallearning would not exist in such an environment. Even the authorities in
the lower levels of education – the High Schools, Junior Highs, andElementary schools – know better.
To the contrary, the institution selects the textbook (whether good orbad), and the student purchases it. Other materials relevant to thesubject are to be found and utilized in the reference area of theinstitution's library. It would seem that only within the confines of theChristian Church is such foolishness practiced and tolerated. Yet in sodoing, have we not completely set aside all common sense and logic?
Finally, it is a fair and accurate statement that in direct proportion to
how much text criticism was legitimized by the Churchmen of nineteenth
century Britain (the bastion of conservatism at that time), to thatselfsame extent was a verbal view of inspiration surrendered.1 Once theverbal infallible view was abandoned, the Bible ceased to be honored as a"sacred" book. Sadly, the Church slumbers on – deceived by so-calledscholarship and oblivious to the singular truth penned over one hundredyears hence:"Vanquished by THE WORD incarnate, Satan next directed his
2subtle malice against the Word written"

The war rages on in unabated fury! The clarion has been sounded.3"Choose you this day whom ye will serve; ... as for me and my house, wewill serve the LORD".4 And how will we so do? By believing God's
promises that He would preserve His infallible Word – forever!

1

Letis, p. 8 in a December 1988 formal correspondence to this author in which he outlined
his doctoral dissertation approach.

2

Burgon, The Revision Revised, op. cit., p. 334.

3

The Holy Authorized King James Bible, I Corinthians 14:8.

4

Ibid., Book of Joshua, 24:15.

218

APPENDIX A – The Pericope de Adultera
JOHN 8:1–11 The story of the woman taken in the act of adultery.
Most New Versions: The story is omitted or footnoted.
Comment: If the woman were caught in the very act, where was theman? God required that both should be stoned (Lev.20:10; Deu.22:22–
24). Jesus knew the entire matter was a set up for the purpose of placing
Him on the horns of a dilemma. If He said stone her according to the
Law of the O.T., He would be in trouble with the Roman authorities. If
He said to release her from the demand of the Law, the people would
reject His claims as Messiah for Messiah would never go against theWord of God.
One reason that so many religious leaders and laymen oppose theinclusion of these verses, called the pericope de adultera in theologicalscholastic circles ("pericope" is a short selection from a book), is due totheir lack of understanding it and thus an inability to properly exegete
the story. The forgiveness which Christ bestowed upon the adulteress iscontrary to the conviction of many that the punishment for adultery
should be very severe.1 For most, the solution is to merely conclude that
Jesus' coming to earth has somehow nullified the Laws of God; that God
no longer punishes sin but has now "become" a God of mercy, love andcompassion. The story seems to offer too many inexplicable contradictory
problems for most, and since they cannot understand the verses – theyraise their vote to exclude them from the Scriptures. It requires great
humility to admit lack of insight. Such men rarely will humble theirintellect before God, constantly labeling paradoxes contained within the
covers of the Bible as "unfortunate scribal errors" simply because their
wisdom has failed to unravel the paradox.
Far better to confess lack of scholarship, understanding or lack ofrevelation than to insist, as most do, that the short-coming must be with
the Scriptures themselves (Man's pride and ego must be served at all
cost!). Many of us are self deceived, imagining that we "believe" the Wordof God. The Lord has deliberately written as He has to bring us to thepoint of honesty. When we are confronted with seemingly contradictory1

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 151.

219

Pericope de Adultera

Appendix A

places in Scripture, what is our response? The response reveals theactual condition of the heart and ego. Do we now still believe or do weplace our intellects above the Word, deciding that because we could notsolve the apparent discrepancy – the Scripture must contain error.
Although not claiming inerrant insight into all such matters, we do notallow any errors within the Holy Writ – scribal or otherwise. We confessignorance, even hardness of heart, in areas that result in our lack ofrevelation from above. We cannot explain all paradoxical parts of
Scripture, but in calm assurance we rest in faith that the solutions arepresent within the pages of Scripture itself. No outside information needbe brought to bear on the problem to "add light" to the Word. How does
one add light to blinding revelation?

THE "PERICOPE" EXPLAINED1

As to the story before us, we find Jesus conducting a "Bible study" at theTemple area. Suddenly the lesson is interrupted by a commotion as thescribes and Pharisees cast before Jesus and the "Church" a terrified
believer, possibly clutching ashamedly at a bed sheet in an attempt toclothe herself and hide her humiliation. These religious leaders carenothing for her life or her shame. For them she is but the means, the bait
for the trap with which they seek to hopelessly ensnare our Lord. Thesemen are not "seekers of truth" as they pretend. Their motive is to secure
the death of their antagonist, and if this woman must die also in securingthat end, so be it.
When Jesus saw that the equally guilty man was not present, He knew
their motive. Further, He knew the man must be of some importance,
influential in the community or else the man would also now be before
Him. Moreover it is quite possible that the man was himself one of theleaders – having deliberately seduced the woman thereby "sacrificing
himself" to commit the act as part of a conspiracy for the very purpose ofentrapping Jesus. "But what sayest thou?" that they might havesomething with which to accuse Him, they inquired. Thus, the real issue
before us is actually that of "authority" (cp. verse 36!).
It is most important that the reader realize that Jesus did not set aside
the Laws of God or make an exception with this woman as though God
1

The author must bear the full responsibility to the reader and before the Lord for theentire exegesis under this heading.

220Pericope de Adultera

Appendix A

had changed His mind or had "softened" from the Old Testament to the
New Testament – that God was a God of wrath in the Old but had
somehow "evolved" into a God of love, grace, and compassion in the New.
God loved and had compassion on the exposed adulterers all throughout
the Old Testament. He certainly did not love or feel more compassion for
her than any before her. It was always the sin itself that He hated, but
His holy nature and justice then as now, called for righteous judgment
and punishment. God never changes (Mal.3:6).
First, this was still the time of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant
could not come into effect until the required blood of the Covenant wasshed. But the reader must come to see that Jesus perfectly upheld thedemand of the Law – Jesus actually told these religious unbelievers tostone her (verse 7)! He told them to obey the Law – but dealt with theirconsciences, bathed in murder as they were, by the prefacing remark "Hethat is without sin among you" let him cast the first stone. The idea
behind this stipulation was twofold. First, Jesus caught them unawares
in that rather than having the "Bible study group" carry out the stoning,
Jesus called on the unregenerate scribes and Pharisees to perform thedeed. Thus if they so did, it would be they whom the Roman authorities
would come against and not Jesus. They would have fallen into the pitthat they themselves had dug (Pro.26:27). The Romans had taken the
power of life and death away from the conquered Jews (Joh.18:31), andRoman law did not condemn an adulteress to be put to death.
In the second place, Jesus is challenging them to merely obey the law towhich they so devotedly cleave. Jesus is calling on the required two or
three eye witnesses (Deu.17:6–7) to now step forward. If they are credible
witnesses, they must now identify themselves and also make known theidentity of the man. If they will not identify the man they will bedisobeying the law and thus will incur guilt. The man having beensummoned, the stoning could continue but the first stones must be castby these same men.
The qualifying "without sin" in Scriptural context with regard towitnesses, does not mean "moral perfection" as many suppose, thereby
creating a problem here that does not exist. The context refers to thewitnesses not being guilty of sin with respect to their being false or
unrighteous witnesses in the matter at hand (cp. Lev.20:10; Deu.17:6–7;
Exo.23:1–2 & 7; Deu.19:15–19 and Pro.6:16–19). This is especially madeclear in Exodus 23:1–2, 7. The Deuteronomy 19 passages continue thetheme of dealing with false witnesses by God's charging the judges with

221

Pericope de Adultera

Appendix A

the responsibility of having the sentence that would have been applied tothe accused meted out to the false witness. The implication from Jesus'
stipulation is that if they obey God, being innocent and without sin
regarding this matter, God would doubtless protect them from the Roman
authorities. If, however, they are not – well then, they could not expect tobe so delivered could they? They would thus incur the same penalty.
What the Lord wrote upon the ground is not recorded, but whatever it
was, it had the effect of convicting each of the accusers in his conscience.
As one of the main functions of the Law was to convict of sin (Rom.3:20,
7:7 & 8b; 7:13), we are certain that which He wrote was Scripture andfrom the Law. Besides, it was the Law upon which they hoped to trap
Jesus (vs.5), yet now through a word of wisdom (I Cor.12:8; Heb.2:4) the
Lord Jesus had used the very same to ensnare them in their own pit. We
do not wish to be dogmatic or presumptuous; nevertheless, we strongly
maintain that the narrative's context makes plain that Jesus included atleast part of Leviticus 20:10 in what He wrote the first time.
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even hethat committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer andthe adulteress shall surely be put to death (Lev.20:10).

We further affirm, judging from the effect upon these men bent as they
were on the destruction of the Lord, the second time Jesus stooped down
He wrote from Deuteronomy 19:15–19. These verses have the sobering
effect of reminding any "unrighteous" or "false" witnesses that thepenalty which they had hoped to inflict upon the accused, would instead
be carried out on them! Even though the woman was actually guilty,
without two or three of them stepping forward and identifying the man –they would be false and unrighteous with regard to the matter.
Moreover, if they now come forward and attempt to only stone thewoman, not being willing to also name the man, they will bring uponthemselves the selfsame judgment. They filed out from the mosthonorable to those of the least repute (the probable sense). No one cameforward.
The Lord Jesus did not condone the woman's adultery but, as merely the"second man" and the "last Adam" (I Cor.15:45,47), He had no authority
to overturn the Roman law and have her stoned. What we are saying isthat even though Jesus was God come down to earth, the Judge of all
flesh – He had not come in that capacity at this time. This He shall doupon His return. As Philippians 2:5–8 and Hebrews 2:5–18 explain, Jesus

222

Pericope de Adultera

Appendix A

took upon Himself the form of a servant, humbled Himself to human
limitations, entered the arena of human affairs and though He neverceased to be God, He went about defeating the Devil and redeeming thefallen race purely as an unfallen man. In so doing, He demonstrated thatthe first Adam could have defeated Satan in the contest in Eden – that
Satan is so limited that an unfallen man can defeat him and be victorious
over temptation and sin by standing on God's Word, be it written as in
Jesus' case (Mat.4:1–11) or only spoken as in Adam's case (Gen.2:16–17).
Thus the Judge had laid aside His Judicial Robe and had voluntarily
accepted certain limitations including that of submission to the will of the
Father in all matters. Jesus had divested Himself of all authority to act
in the capacity as a Judge. Lest the reader doubt this or consider such a
declaration offensive or demeaning to the person and Holy character of
our Lord, remember that Jesus Himself so taught on another occasion(Luk.12:13–14).
Now observe what the Master teacher has accomplished. The Lord Jesus
would not deal with the woman in the presence of unbelievers (I Cor.6:1& 6). His tactic emptied the "Bible study" of the lost hypocrites. This
freed Him to deal with her among and within the family of God. The
unnamed woman was said to be standing "in the midst" (vs.9). Had
everyone left, how could she have been "in the midst"? It does not saythat all the people whom our Lord had been instructing went out, but
only her accusers, having been convicted. The rest (vs.2) continued with
their teacher, the adulteress being in their midst (cp. vs. 3b, "in the
midst"). Jesus is "left alone" in the sense that His antagonists, having
departed, left Him with only true seekers – those of His own "family". It
cannot mean "alone" in the absolute sense for we know that the woman
was there. The "none" of verse 10 is with regard to the accusers who had
burst in with her.
The point being made is that the Lord does not deal with His own
concerning their sins in the presence of the wicked. Now that the"courtroom" had been cleared of the infidels, the problem at hand could be
handled as a family matter. She is dealt with fully in accord with theprinciples of the Law, and with "Church" discipline! Jesus had not
accepted the testimony of these wicked lost men, men with murder intheir hearts, as being credible or valid against a sinning saint. The
matter would be handled much as an unconfirmed bad report.
Now He, according to the exact instructions of the Law, brought the"court" to order – calling for the credible witnesses against her (vs.10)!

223

Pericope de Adultera

Appendix A

Reader, see it clearly that Jesus is not abrogating the Law as nearly allteach. He said He had not come to do that (Mat.5:17–19)!
Two eye witnesses were required by the law to implement its being
carried out (Joh.8:17) and the eye witnesses had to cast the first stones.
The death penalty could not be meted out as there were none present.
To now do so would actually violate the specific instructions so carefully
detailed within the Law. As only an earthly human Judge – Jesus
cannot now lawfully condemn her to death; there are no witnesses to herdeed present! Truly, the Law had been used by Jesus "lawfully"(I Tim.1:8).
"But how do we know that she was a believer?", one protests – by the way
Jesus handled the matter as explained above. Were she a pagan, themanner with which she was dealt within the "Bible study" would makeno sense. Next, though not of itself conclusive, she addressed Jesus as"Lord" (vs.11).
Decisive, however, was Jesus' final remark to the woman. Were she
unregenerate the Lord's words "go, and sin no more" would bemeaningless and vacuous. In the first place, without the Holy Spirit's
presence and power in her life, she would be helpless to refrain for long
without sin again taking dominion over her.
Secondly and conclusively, she would be no better off with such
instructions from Christ as she had been when she had been so
unceremoniously brought to Him at the first – for she would still be lostand hell bound even if she never sinned again. The sin she had justcommitted would doom her apart from a sin substitute – a Savior. Such
instructions would only benefit a believer who has fallen into the snare ofsin.
But was not Jesus letting her off too easy for such a flagrant shamefulsin? Shouldn't she have gotten what she deserved? First, we all deserve
to be banished to hell forever – we all have dared to sin against a threetimes Holy God. By His marvelous plan of redemption through faith inChrist Jesus, God has made a way for Him to deal with us in both mercy
and justice such that we are disciplined but not condemned. When He
deals with our sin in any way that is less than eternal exile to the lakethat forever burns with fire, we all get off "easy" – though it may notseem so at the moment.

224

Pericope de Adultera

Appendix A

Next, we affirm that she did not get off easily. Forever with her would be
the humiliation of being caught in the very act of adultery. She had beenbrought out and terrified with the threat of public execution. What wild
fear must have raced through her heart! Consider the shame of being
thrust before your own local Bible study half covered – men so bent on
the destruction of another would certainly not have allowed time for her
to have made herself more "presentable". Brought low before those whoknow you and the fact of your hypocrisy laid open for all to see – was thisreally getting off "easy"?
But there is more. To be brought, degraded and disheveled, before theSavior face to face after having just failed Him so ignominiously would
not be light discipline. Further, the Name of her God had beendishonored for now the scoffers would mock.
Finally, though forgiven of this sin – and let all observe and mark that
Jesus did call adultery "sin", not an "affair between consenting adults" or"a meaningful relationship" – the woman had lost eternal rewards.
Blessings that God desired to heap upon her for all eternity, He now inrighteousness could not so shower. Oh reader, to forever lose somethingthat He who loves you and died for you would have given you, is not thatjust punishment? Yes, for such is the actual discipline that wasdischarged.
Moreover, we do not know if further ramifications followed as venereal
disease, pregnancy, loss of husband and/or children (if applicable in hercase), loss of job, depression, guilt, etc. Having one's sins forgiven does
not mean that the consequences of the sin are obliterated in this life.
David was forgiven in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba, but theconsequences that were set in motion by the sin followed David to his
grave. It is to David's credit that he never accused God of dealing too
severely with him or whined concerning the matter. For many, stoning
would have been the preferred choice over the above. No, her sin wasneither condoned nor soft peddled.
Lest the reader still have the slightest reservation that our major points
have been inaccurate or mistaken, we call to his attention that thesesame points are confirmed, being presented afterward in the same
chapter! Jesus asserted that He was not there to judge men (vs.15), notyet (cp. John 5:22; 18:36 – i.e., "now")! But if He does judge now (inquestions other than civil or criminal matters) in "Family" matters andthe like, His judgment will be true (vs.16). In the same verse, Jesus

225

Pericope de Adultera

Appendix A

acknowledges that He is not executing this wisdom by His own God
power and attributes, but by the power and wisdom of His Father (via thegifts of the Holy Spirit, Heb.2:4 etc.). He then brings up the point fromthe Law which calls for the necessity of at least the attestation of two
witnesses in establishing truth (vs.17), and in verse 36 Jesus makes
unmistakably clear that He has final authority.
Majestically, we have seen the Lord Jesus the Christ in an awesome
display of wisdom, mercy, love and compassion employ only several
Scriptures from the Law and merely 15 words (only 9 in the Greek) tovanquish the wicked. Then with only 21 words (Greek = 18), He bothjudged and restored a sinning saint. Truly – He is Worthy!

BACK TO THE PROBLEM
Why then was the story deleted or footnoted? Again, no name was given
for the man but had he not been influential (even a scribe or Pharisee) hewould have been brought out with the woman. Perhaps a certain
religious Gnostic (Origen) who walked about castrated and barefoot while
trying to work his way into the Kingdom of God might be offended by astory which, as originally written, exposed a religious leader as having
committed adultery.
Of this we are not certain, but as to theinterpretation of the story given above, that we proclaim to the glory ofGod.
Tragically, most naturalistic scholars today feel so certain that the
pericope is not genuine that they regard further discussion of the matteras unprofitable.1 Their arguments against the authenticity of the section
are largely arguments from silence and the most telling of these silences
is generally thought to be that of the Greek Church "Fathers".2 Bruce
Metzger (1964) affirms that no Greek Father refers to the pericope until
the first part of the 12th century.3 For the critic, this frail external
evidence is conclusive. However, Constantine von Tischendorf lists nine
manuscripts of the 9th century which contain the verses under discussion1

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 154. Most of the remainder of thisdefense of the Pericope has been gleaned from Dr. Hills excellent critique; see his pp.
150–159.

2

Ibid., p. 156.

3

Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration,
op. cit., p. 223.

226

Pericope de Adultera

Appendix A

and also one which may be of the 8th century.1 Yet not one Father
commented upon these verses from the 9th until the 12th century,
demonstrating that silence is not a trustworthy measure upon which toplace one's confidence. The entire matter of this silence is of no force
whatsoever as we shall demonstrate.
First, we remind the reader that many of the Greek Fathers may wellhave been influenced against the pericope by the moralistic prejudice of
which we have spoken; also, some may have been intimidated by the factthat several manuscripts known to them omitted it.2 Augustine wrotethat these verses were being left out by some "lest their wives should begiven impunity in sinning".3 Hills adds that a 10th century Greek named
Nikon accused the Armenians of removing the account because "it was
harmful for most persons to listen to such things".4
Burgon mentions another most relevant reason why these early Fathers
did not comment on this section.5 Their comments were connected to thesubject matter they preached and the "pericope de adultera" was omitted
from the ancient Pentecostal lesson of the Church. Burgon concludes
that this is why Chrysostom (345–407) and Cyril (376–444), two earlychurch Fathers, "in publicly commenting on John's Gospel, pass straightfrom ch. 7:52 to ch. 8:12. Of course they do. Why should they – indeed,
how could they – comment on what was not publicly read before thecongregation?"6
Hills continues: "At a very early date it had become customary
throughout the Greek Church to read John 7:37–8:12 on the day ofPentecost. This lesson began with 7:37–39, verses that are very
appropriate to the Pentecostal feast day in which the outpouring of theHoly Spirit is commemorated: 'In the last day, that great day of the feast,
Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me,
and drink ... But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on
1

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 156.

2

Ibid., p. 157.

3

Ibid., p. 151.

4

Ibid.

5

Ibid., p. 157.

6

Burgon, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, op. cit.,p. 257.

227

Pericope de Adultera

Appendix A

him should receive.' Then the lesson continued through John 7:52,
omitting 7:53–8:11, and concluded with John 8:12 – 'Then spake Jesus
again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me
shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.'"1 Had theteaching ended at 7:52, the anomalous result would have been a lection
concluding on an inconclusive remark ("Search and look: for out of Galileeariseth no prophet".). Hence, 8:12 was appended as a more appropriate
conclusion to the Pentecost lesson.

GREEKS BEARING ANSWERS
Why then was the story of the Adulteress omitted from the Pentecostal
lesson? Obviously because it was inappropriate to the central idea ofPentecost.2 The content of the Pericope did not pertain to the theme ofthat day's teaching, thus it would have interfered with its flow. However,the critics insist that it was not read because it was not part of the Gospelof John at the time the Pentecostal lesson was selected – that it wasadded to the original reading hundreds of years later. Yet by so insisting
they shoot themselves in the foot. As Hills has asked: "Why would ascribe introduce this story about an adulteress into the midst of theancient lesson for Pentecost? How would it ever occur to anyone to do
this?"3 Besides, such a well known section could not be altered without
the Church's awareness of the change and, tradition bound as people are,an outcry of major proportion would have been forthcoming from clergy
and laity alike. Also, such a momentous change would have arousedmuch written protest and debate. Where is the historical evidence ofsuch – but forgive us – we now argue from silence!
Moreover, although the Greek Fathers were silent about the "pericope deadultera" the Church was not silent. John 8:3–11 was chosen as thelesson to be read publicly each year on St. Pelagia's day, October 8th.4
John Burgon first pointed out the significance of this historicalcircumstance: "The great Eastern Church speaks out on this subject in avoice of thunder. In all her Patriarchates, as far back as the written
records of her practice reach – and they reach back to the time of those1

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 157.

2

Ibid.

3

Ibid., p. 158.

4

Ibid.

228

Pericope de Adultera

Appendix A

very Fathers whose silence was felt to be embarrassing – the Eastern
Church has selected nine of these twelve verses to be the special lesson
for October 8".1 As Burgon remarked, this is not opinion – but a fact.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
The internal evidence for the verses is compelling. Looking back at
John 7:37–52, we note that two hostile parties crowded the Temple courts(vv.40–42). Some were for laying violent hands upon Jesus (vs.44). At thesame time, the Sanhedrin disputed among themselves privately in closed
chambers. Some were reproaching their servants for not having taken
Jesus prisoner (vv.45–52).
How then could John have proceeded "Again therefore Jesus spake unto
them, saying, I am the light of the world"? What are we supposed toimagine that John meant if he had penned such words immediately
following the angry council scene?2
Hills rightly observes that the rejection of the pericope leaves a strange
connection between the seventh and eighth chapters: "the reader issnatched from the midst of a dispute in the council chamber of theSanhedrin back to Jesus in the Temple without a single word of
explanation".3 If the pericope is left between these two events, it accounts
for the rage of the leaders having been temporarily diffused through theencounter over the woman such that the narrative beginning at 8:12
could transpire without being so out of place. Though their hatred for
Jesus remained, the pericope incident brought its intensity down until
the following confrontation.
To this we add Jerome's testimony (c.415) "in the Gospel according toJohn in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of
the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord".4
Finally, Dr. Maurice Robinson's recent 1998 preliminary report based
upon 1,665 "fresh collations of nearly all continuous-text" Greek New
1

Burgon, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, op. cit.,
pp. 259–260.

2

Ibid., pp. 237–238.

3

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 159.

4

Ibid., p. 151.

229

Pericope de Adultera

Appendix A

Testament manuscripts revealed that around 1,350 (81%) included the
Pericope.1
We ask the reader's indulgence over the space allotted to this
explanation, but the author deemed it necessary to so do in order that you
may better judge whether this story be Scripture. The 1611 translators
may or may not have understood the account; regardless, they faithfully
penned it without detraction.

For ever, O LORD, thy word
is settled in heaven.
Psalm 119:89

1

Maurice A. Robinson, "Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae based
upon Fresh Collations of nearly all Continuous-Text Manuscripts and over One Hundred
Lectionaries". Dr. Robinson is Professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern
Baptist Theological Seminary at Wake Forest, North Carolina. This paper reflects his
nine-month study conducted at the Münster, Germany Institut which was founded by
Kurt Aland. The Institut serves as the official registry center for all known Greek N.T.
manuscripts and also possesses microfilm copies of nearly all those MSS. Dr. Robinson's
paper was presented at the 50th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society
held 19–21 November 1998 in Orlando, Florida.

230

APPENDIX B – The Johannine CommaFIRST JOHN 5:6–8
6. This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not bywater only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that bearethwitness, because the Spirit is truth. 7. For there are three that bear recordin heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and thesethree are one. 8. And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The boldfaced portion as found in the KJB is omitted from the NIV and
RSV and is footnoted or missing in nearly all modern versions, reading
instead, "There are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water andthe blood" or something closely akin.
Comment: This Scripture has been entitled the "Johannine Comma" by
textual critics. The verse as found in the King James is the strongest
single Scripture on the Holy Trinity. As such, it is not surprising that itshould be the subject of vehement debate and an object of Satan's attack.
It is a shameful, sad comment upon our time as to how readily modern
Christians will surrender this and other passages on "textual grounds"
without bothering to delve more closely into the evidence.
Dr. J.A. Moorman – a dedicated Godly minister, capsuling the posture ofmodern textual criticism which insists upon the omission of the passage,
has set forth the following particulars:1

1

1.

The passage is missing from every known Greek manuscript except
four, and these contain the passage in what appears to be atranslation from a late recension (revision) of the Latin Vulgate.
These four are all late manuscripts. They are a 16th century ms(#61), a 12th century ms (#88) which had the passage written in themargin by a modern hand, a 15th century ms (#629), and an 11th
century ms which has the passage written in the margin by a 17th
century hand.

2.

The passage is not quoted by any of the Greek Fathers who would
have used it as proof in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and
Arian) had they known of the section. Its first appearance in Greek
is in a 1215 Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Latern Council.

Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, op. cit., pp. 115–123.
Appendix B is largely dependent upon Dr. Moorman.

231

The Johannine Comma3.

Appendix B

The section is not present in the mss of all the ancient versions
except the Latin. Even then, it is not found in the Old Latin in its
early form and it is not in Jerome's Vulgate (c.405).
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as part of theactual text of First John is a fourth century Latin treatise.
Supposedly the "gloss" arose when the original passage wasunderstood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of threewitnesses; the Spirit, and the water and the blood).
Thisinterpretation, they tell us, may have been written as a marginal
note at first and, as time went on, found its way into the text.
The "gloss" was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy inthe 5th century as part of the text. From the 6th century on, it isfound more and more frequently in mss of the Old Latin and Vulgate.

4.

If the passage were original, a compelling reason or reasons shouldhave been found to account for its omission, either accidentally ordeliberately, by all of the copyists of hundreds of Greek mss and bytranslators of ancient versions (called transcriptional probability,
page 124). Lastly, they inform us that the passage makes anawkward break in the sense (called intrinsic probability – page 124).

There it is! These are the standard arguments that have been repeatedad nauseam. It sounds convincing, but is the entire story being told?

THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE "COMMA"First, we straightforwardly concede that the Johannine Comma has theleast Greek supportive evidence by far of any New Testament passage.
However, there is much to be offered in defending its inclusion in
Scripture. As to external evidence, we begin by apprising the reader that
the Nestle-Aland 26th edition lists 4 cursive mss that include thepassage. These are 61 (16th century), 629 (14th cent.), 918 (16th cent.), and2318 (18th cent.). It also lists 88 (12th cent.), 221 (10th cent.), 429 (14thcent.), and 636 (15th cent.) as having the passage in the margin.1 Anotheris cited by Metzger and UBS1, bringing the total to nine out of the c.500
Greek mss witnesses to the 5th chapter of IºJohn.2 Further, only 14 of the1

Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, op. cit., p. 119.

2

Further, the Nestle-Aland26 critical apparatus mentions that other Greek mss contain thereading in the margin. It is usually held by critics that a number of these are merely
copies of the Vulgate at I John 5:7, but their wording is carefully couched with subtle
qualifying words (e.g., "appears to be") which reveals that such is by no means certain.
1997–2004 editions of my Which Version erroneously reported that cursive mss "34, 88(margin), 99, 105, 110, 162, 173, 181, 190, 193, 219, 220, 221, 298, 429, 629 (margin), 635,

232

The Johannine Comma

Appendix B

c.500 predate the 9th century. Thus, the list of Greek mss containing the"Comma" is not long, but it is longer than many would have us believe.
Though there is a paucity of support for the text in the Greek speaking
East, some late versions include the portion under question such as thefirst Armenian Bible (1666) which was based primarily on a 1295 mss
and the first printed Georgian Bible, published at Moscow in 1743.1
As to the critics' contention that "the passage is not quoted by any of the
Greek Fathers who would have employed it as proof in the Trinitarian
controversies had they known of the section", our first reply is that nosuch controversy existed.2 During the first age of the Church, the subjects
debated between the Christians and the heretics were over the divinity
and the humanity of Christ. The contests maintained with and between
these heretics did not extend beyond the consideration of the second
Person – "whether the Son possessed one subsistence or two persons,instead of two subsistences and one person", etc (Nolan, pp. 533-534).
They did not assume the form of a Trinitarian controversy, hence nosuitable occasion arose to cite the verse in question.
Secondly, the early eastern Fathers are silent on nearly everything forthe simple reason that their literary works have not survived to thepresent.3 Relevant to this, Harry A. Sturz has made the point "... there
636, and 918" also included the passage and that "60 lectionaries" contained the reading
as well as "uncials R, F, M, and Q". However, Scott Jones of Atlanta, GA has documented
to me that our referenced source [Gerardus D. Bouw, The Book of Bible Problems,(Cleveland, OH: Asso. for Biblical Astronomy Pub., 1997), pp. 232–234] used a sourcethat was inaccurate regarding the data within these quotations. Indeed, S. Jones reportsthat R, F, M, and Q are all Latin manuscripts with lower case sigla which someone
transposed into uncial letters resulting in their becoming confused as Greek witnesses.
1

Ibid., p. 120; also see Scrivener, A Plain Introduction, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 401.

2

Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, op. cit., pp. 525–557. Dr. Nolan
points out that all the heretics would have subscribed to the letter of this text as they all
admitted to the existence of "three" powers, or principles, in the "one" Divinity. This
included the Gnostics, Ebionites, Valentinians, Sabellians, Arians, Nestorians, etc.
Moreover, the Sabellians and Arians agreed as to the existence of "three" making up theDivine Nature. The controversy between the two cults centered on the force of the term"Son" as opposed to the term "Word" or Logos. As the text uses the term "Word" insteadof "Son", the term trei'" (three) in the context of the 7th verse was as unsuitable to the
purpose of the Sabellians who confounded the Persons as was tò e{n (that one) to Eusebius– for the Arians divided the substance.

3

Moorman, When The KJV Departs, op. cit., p. 121. Although the "Comma" itself is notquoted, Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, used the word "Trinity" c.168 and Athenagoras,
writing in Greek to Roman emperors c.177, alluded to the 3 heavenly witnesses: "God theFather, & of God the Son, & of the Holy Spirit" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, p. 133).

233

The Johannine Comma

Appendix B

are no earlier Antiochian Fathers than Chrysostom (died 407) whoseliterary remains are extensive enough so that their New Testament
quotations may be analyzed as to the type of text they support".1
Moorman notes that there is reason to doubt that any serious search has
been carried out on the eastern Fathers from Chrysostom forward or on
the versions, for since Westcott and Hort a cloud has fallen on the textual
scene and very little attention has been given to I John 5:7.2 Yet crucial
to the issue at hand is whether there are any references to the passage
prior to 1522, the year it was supposedly added to the Bible by Erasmus.
The favorable evidence is stronger in the early Latin west. The "threeheavenly Witnesses" is contained in practically all of the extant Latin
Vulgate mss.3 Although said to not be in Jerome's original edition (see#3, p. 232), Jerome himself complained that irresponsible translators hadomitted the passage in the Greek codices.4 Thus he undoubtedly included
it in his translation, and it was later removed by others. Around 800
A.D., it was restored into the text of the Vulgate from the Old Latin mss.5
It was part of the text of a 2nd century Old Latin Bible. The passage iscited by Tertullian6 (c.215), Cyprian7 of Carthage (c.250), and Priscillian,a Spanish Christian executed on a charge of heresy in A.D. 385.8 It isfound in "r", a 5th century Old Latin manuscript, and in a confession offaith drawn up by Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage, in 484.
After the Vandals over-ran the African provinces, their King (Hunnerich)summoned the bishops of the African Church and the adjacent isles todeliberate on the doctrine bound within the disputed passage.9 Between
three to four hundred prelates attended the Council at Carthage while
Eugenius, as bishop of that See, drew up the Confession of the orthodox
1

Sturz, The Byzantine Text Type And New Testament Textual Criticism, op. cit., p. 80.

2

Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, op. cit., p. 121.

3

Ibid. A few early copies do omit the verse, but Scrivener states that the passage is to befound in c.49 of every 50 mss (Plain Introduction, 4th ed. op. cit., Vol. II, p. 403).

4

Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7–8, (Tempe, AZ: Comma Pub.,
1995), p. 41. Maynard's excellent work was not known to me until after my 19th edition.

5

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 210.

6

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 621.

7

Ibid., op. cit., Vol. 5, p. 423.

8

Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, op. cit., pp. 121–122.

9Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, op. cit., pp. 295–296.

234

The Johannine Comma

Appendix B

in which the contested 7th verse is expressly quoted.1 That the entire
African Church assembled in council should have concurred in quoting averse which was not contained in the original text is altogether
inconceivable. Such loudly proclaims that the 7th verse was part of its
text from the beginning. The verse was cited by Vigilus of Thapsus (490),
Cassiodorus (480–570) of Italy, and Fulgentius of Ruspe in North Africa(died 533). Moreover, this is not a complete listing. Therefore, earlytestimony for this key Trinitarian verse does exist.

CRITICAL INTERNAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE COMMA
If I John 5:6–8 is removed from the Greek text, the two resulting loose
ends will not join together grammatically. The noun endings in Greek (asin many other languages) has "gender". Neuter nouns normally require
neuter articles (the word "the" as in "the blood" is the article). But thearticle in verse 8 of the shortened reading as found in the Greek that is
the foundation of the new versions (verse 7 of the King James Greek text)
is masculine. Thus the new translations read "the Spirit (neuter), thewater (neuter), and the blood (neuter): and these three (masculine! – fromthe Greek article "hoi") are in one". Consequently three neuter subjects
are being treated as masculine (see below where the omitted portion isitalicized).2 If the "Comma" is rejected it is impossible to adequately
explain this irregularity. In addition, without the "Comma" verse 7 has amasculine antecedent; 3 neuter subjects (nouns in vs.8) do not take amasculine antecedent. Viewing the entire passage, it becomes apparent
how this rule of grammar is violated when the words are omitted.
5:6 ... And it is the Spirit (neuter) that beareth witness (neuter), because theSpirit (neuter) is truth.
5:7 For there are three (masculine) that bear record (masculine) [in heaven, theFather (masculine), the Word (masculine), and the Holy Ghost (neuter): andthese three (masculine) are one (masculine).
5:8 And there are three (masculine) that bear witness (masculine) in earth,]the Spirit (neuter), and the water (neuter), and the blood (neuter): and thesethree (masculine) agree in one.
1

Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, op. cit., pp. 295–296.

2

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 211. Although he does not directly
quote the passage, c.385 A.D. Gregory of Nazianzus alluded to it and objected to thegrammatical structure of a masculine plural participle with three neuter nouns [i.e., (7)m:pl = (8) n+n+n] which would only have been the case were the Comma omitted. By sodoing, Gregory of Nazianzus plainly opposed its omission [The Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983), Vol. 7, pp. 323–324].

235

The Johannine Comma

Appendix B

When we inquire of the scholars an accounting for this strange situation,
the reply is that the only way to account for the masculine use of thethree neuters in verse 8 is that here they have been "personalized".1 Yet
we observe that the Holy Spirit is referred to twice in verse 6 and as He is
the third person of the Trinity this would amount to "personalizing" theword "Spirit" – but the neuter gender is used. Therefore – as Hills noted– since personalization did not bring about a change of gender in verse 6,
it cannot fairly be pleaded as the reason for such a change in verse 8.2
What then is to be done by way of explanation? The answer is thatsomething is missing! If we retain the Johannine Comma, a reason forreferring to the neuter nouns (Spirit, water, and blood) of verse 8 in the
masculine gender becomes readily clear.3 The key is the principle of"influence" and "attraction" in Greek grammar.4 What influence would
cause "that bear record" in verse 7 and "these three" in verse 8 tosuddenly become masculine? The answer can only be: due to the
influence of the nouns Father and Word in verse 7 which are masculine –it is the inclusion of the Father and the Word, to which the beginning andending of the passage are attracted, a principle well known in Greek
syntax. In effect then, the only way the spirit, the water and the bloodcan be "personalized" is by retaining the reading of the 1611 King Jamesand the Greek text upon which it is based where all three words are
direct references to the Trinity (vs.7). Where is the "Person"? "ThePerson" is in verse 7 of the Authorized Version of 1611.
The reader will note that the underlined phrase, "that bear witness",
occurring three times in the preceding passage is a participle which is a
type of verbal adjective.5 As adjectives, they modify nouns and must
agree in gender. Thus if a text critic wishes to remove this passage(enclosed in square brackets) with integrity, he should be able to answer
the following:6

1

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 212.

2

Ibid.

3

Ibid.

4

Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, op. cit., p. 117.

5

Ibid., p. 116.

6

Ibid.

236

The Johannine Comma

Appendix B

1.

Why after using a neuter participle in line one is a masculine participle
suddenly used in line two?

2.

How can the masculine numeral, article (in the Greek), and participle(the 2nd of the three masculine adjectives) of line two be allowed todirectly modify the three neuter nouns of line five?

3.

What phenomena in Greek syntax (the part of grammar dealing with themanner in which words are assembled to form phrases, clauses orsentences in an orderly system or arrangement) would cause the neuternouns of line five to be treated as masculine by the "these three" on thesame fifth line?

There is no satisfactory answer! Leading Greek scholars as Metzger,
Vincent, Alford, Vine, Wuest, Bruce, Plummer etc., make no mention
whatever of the problem when dealing with the passage in any of theirworks to date.1 The International Critical Commentary devotes twelve
pages to the passage but is ignorantly or dishonestly silent regarding themismatched genders.
Finally, with regard to internal evidence, if the words were omitted, theconcluding words at the end of verse 8 contain an unintelligible reference.
The Greek words "kai hoi treis eis to hen eisin" (kaò oiJ trei'" eij" tò e{neijsin) mean precisely – "and these three agree to that (aforementioned)One".2 If the 7th verse is omitted, "that One" does not appear.
It is inconceivable how "that One" (Grk = to hen = tò e{n) can be reconciledwith the taking away of the preceding words,3 that is – by taking out the"Comma". As Gaussen remarked: "Remove it, and the grammar becomesincoherent".4

1

Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, op. cit., p. 117.

2

Ibid., p. 118; here Moorman quotes an extract from Robert Dabney [Dabney's Discussions
Evangelical and Theological, (Trinitarian Bible Society, n.d.)] but he gives neither date
nor page.

3

Ibid., p. 118; here Moorman cites Gaussen (The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, p. 193;
he does not give the publisher or date) who is quoting from Bishop Middleton's 1828 A.D.
eighteen page discussion of the Greek Article.

4

Ibid., p. 119.

237

The Johannine Comma

Appendix B

A FEASIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE OMISSION
OF THE "COMMA"
We take our long overdue departure from this much disputed verse byoffering the following as a plausible explanation for the omission of
I John 5:7 which is taken from the late (1981) Christian text critic, Dr.
Edward Freer Hills:1"... during the second and third centuries (between 220 and 270,
according to Harnack) the heresy which orthodox Christians
were called upon to combat was not Arianism (since this error
had not yet arisen), but Sabellianism (... after Sabellius, one ofits principal promoters), according to which the Father, the Son,and the Holy Spirit were one in the sense that they wereidentical. Those that advocated this heretical view were called
Patripassians (Father-suffers), because they believed that God
the Father, being identical with Christ, suffered and died upon
the cross; ...
"It is possible, therefore, that the Sabellian heresy brought the
Johannine comma into disfavour with orthodox christians. ...
And if during the course of the controversy manuscripts werediscovered which had lost this reading..., it is easy to see how
the orthodox party would consider these mutilated manuscripts
to represent the true text and regard the Johannine comma as aheretical addition. In the Greek-speaking East especially thecomma would be unanimously rejected, for there the struggle
against Sabellianism was particularly severe.
"Thus it is not impossible that during the 3rd century, amid thestress and strain of the Sabellian controversy, the Johannine
comma lost its place in the Greek text but was preserved in the
Latin texts of Africa and Spain, where the influence ofSabellianism was probably not so great. … it is not impossiblethat the Johannine comma was one of those few true readings of
the Latin Vulgate not occurring in the Traditional Greek Text
but incorporated into the Textus Receptus under the guiding
providence of God. In these rare instances God called upon theusage of the Latin-speaking Church to correct the usage of the
Greek-speaking Church".
1

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., pp. 212–213. Also see pp. 107, 188 and
200 for similar statements. Most of the wording of the third paragraph in my previous
editions were erroneously attributed to this citation but were actually from page 193 inHills' 1967 version of Believing Bible Study. Unfortunately, the two quotes were
inadvertently combined.

238

The Johannine Comma

Appendix B

So to Hills, although the traditional text found in the vast majority of the
Greek manuscripts was a fully trustworthy reproduction of the divinely
inspired original text, it could still be possible that the text of the Latin
Vulgate, which really represents the long-established usage of the Latin
Church, preserved a few genuine readings not found in the Greek. Thus
with regard to external evidence, we have seen that for the most part if
I John 5:7 is received, it must be admitted mainly on the testimony of theWestern or Latin Church. Admittedly, it seems unwarranted to set aside
the authority of the Greek Church and accept the witness of the Latin
where a question arises as to the authenticity of a passage which properly
belongs to the text of the former. Still, when the doctrine within that
passage is taken into account, reasons do exist for giving preference tothe Western Church's authority over the Eastern's. Indeed, the ancient
Greek Church bears this out for, as we noted on page 215, until 1904 its
N.T. text (which they assure back to at least the mid-4th century – thetime of B and ℵ!) contained word for word the last six verses of Revelation 22 as preserved in the TR/KJB, and it still maintains the Comma!
As the quote from Dr. Hills indicates, shortly after the period in which
the Sabellian heresy flourished, Arianism arose. Arius, a presbyter ofAlexandria (d. 336 A.D.) and pupil of Lucian of Antioch, denied the deity
and eternality of Christ Jesus. The Greek or Eastern Church wascompletely given over to that heresy from the reign of Constantine to thatof Theodosius the Elder, a span of at least forty years (c.340–381, theconvening of the fourth Council of Byzantium). Conversely, the Western
Church remained uncorrupted by the Arian heresy during this period.1
Thus if the "Comma" problem did not develop during the Sabellian
controversy as Dr. Hills proposes, it may well have so done during thetime of the Arian dominion of the Greek Church as Dr. Frederick Nolan
has forcefully propounded. Dr. Nolan argues that with the Arians incontrol of the Greek Church for the forty or so year span, Eusebius wasable to suppress this passage in the edition that he revised which had theeffect of removing the verse from the Greek texts.2 Thus the disputed
1

Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, op. cit., pp. 28–29, 293–306.
Indeed, Dr. Frederick Nolan's defense of I John 5:7 is without equal. See especially pp.
525–576 where his insight, logic, and powers of deduction are par excellence.

2

Ibid., p. 305. Dr. Nolan is quick to point out that the verse as preserved in the Latin
manuscripts is consistent and full whereas the Greek is internally defective grammatically (pp. 259–261, 294) – as we have already seen. Thus Nolan notes that here where
the testimony of the two Churches has been found to vary, the evidence is not to be taken
as contradictory, but rather that one is merely defective. Having confronted the twowitnesses, the best way to account for all that has been stated heretofore is to supposethat there was a time when the two agreed in the more full and explicit reading (p. 306).

239

The Johannine Comma

Appendix B

verse was originally suppressed, not gradually introduced into the Latintranslation.1

FINAL CONSIDERATIONSThere remains one more valid and compelling reason for the acceptanceof the section under discussion as being genuine. As stated on page 183,
the Textus Receptus always has been the New Testament used by the true
Church! We have cited Parvis' admission of this conclusively decisive
point and Aland's concession that it undoubtedly has been the N.T. of the
Church from the Reformation until the mid twentieth century. This is
the most important justification why not only this passage, but all of thepassages that would be deleted or altered by the destructive critics should
be retained in the confines of Scripture.
Finally, it cannot be overly stressed that the successive editors of the TR
could have omitted the passage from their editions. The fact that
Stephens, Beza, and the Elzevirs retained the Pericope, despite thereluctance of Erasmus to include it, is not without significance. The
learned Lutheran text critic J.A. Bengel also convincingly defended its
inclusion2 as did Hills in this century. The hard fact is that, by theprovidence of God, the Johannine comma obtained and retained a placein the Textus Receptus. We emphatically declare that the most extreme
caution should be exercised in questioning its right to that place.
Moorman reminds us that the fate of this passage in the written Word
indeed parallels the many times Satan sought to destroy the line throughwhich Messiah – the Living Word would come.3 We are reminded, forexample, of wicked Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, slaying all of
the seed royal of the lineage of David – save for Joash!
Moreover, this author concurs with Moorman – the passage has the ringof truth.4 Like him, we proclaim that it is the Holy Spirit who "guides
into all truth" (John 16:13) who has given it that "ring".

1

Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, op. cit., p. 561.

2John Albert Bengel, Gnomon, 5 Vols., 6th ed., trans by The Rev. William Fletcher, D.D.,(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Pub., 1866), Vol. 5, pp. 140–150 (orig. pub. 1742).

3

Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, op. cit., p. 123.

4

Ibid.

240

APPENDIX C – Examples of Modern Criticism
TEXTUAL SAMPLING
It seems unreasonable that individuals and organizations professing tochampion a high view of Scripture and defending its inerrancy and verbal
plenary inspiration should embrace a Greek text which effectively
undermines their belief. Since their sincerity is evident, one must
conclude that they are uninformed, or have not really looked at theevidence and weighed the implications.
In the small sampling of modern textual scholarship that follows,1 thereading of the Textus Receptus is transliterated first and that of UBS3
second, followed by any others. Beside each variant, in parenthesis is a
literal equivalent in English. To each variant is attached a statement ofmanuscript and versional support similar to that found in the "critical
apparatus" of UBS3 (If the reader is unfamiliar with the process ofinterpreting the statements of support; he should move on to thediscussion). "Byz" usually represents over 90% of the extant (known)
Greek MSS/mss. The set of variants with their respective supporting
evidence is followed by a brief critique of the implications.
Luke 4:44"Galilaias" (of Galilee) – A, D, E, G, K, M, U, X, Y, Γ, Δ, Θ, Π, Ψ, 047,
0211, +6unc, f13, 33, Byz, lat, syrp
"Ioudaias" (of Judea) – P75vid, Aleph, B, C, L, Q, R(W)f1, Lect, syrs,h, cop

Problem: Jesus was in Galilee (and continued there), not in Judea.
Discussion: In the parallel passage, Mark 1:35–39, all texts agree
that Jesus was in Galilee. Thus UBS3 contradicts itself by reading"Judea" in Luke 4:44. Bruce Metzger, writing as spokesman for thecommittee which edited the issue, makes clear that the UBS editors
did this on purpose when he explains that their reading "is obviously
the more difficult, and copyists have corrected it ... in accord with the1This entire Appendix has been adapted from: Wilbur N. Pickering, What Difference DoesIt Make?, (Dallas, TX:, 1990), pp. 1–17.

241

Examples of Modern Criticism

Appendix C

parallels in Mt.4:23 and Mk.1:39".1 This error in the eclectic text is
reproduced by the LB, NIV, NASB, NEB, RSV, etc.
Luke 23:45"eskotisthe" (was darkened) – A, Cc, D, E, G, K, M, Q, R, U, V, W, X, Y, Γ,Δ, Θ, Π, Ψ, 0117, 0135, +5unc, f1,13, Byz, Lect, lat, syr, Diat"eklipontos" (being eclipsed) – P75, Aleph(B,Cvid), L, 0124, (cop)Problem: An eclipse of the sun is impossible during a full moon.
Such an eclipse may only occur at the new moon phase. Jesus was
crucified during the Passover, and the Passover is always at fullmoon (which is why the date for Easter shifts around). UBS
introduces a scientific error.
Discussion: The Greek verb "ekleipw" (εκλειπω) is quite commonand has the basic meaning "to fail" or "to end", but when used of thesun or the moon it refers to an eclipse. Moreover, our word "eclipse"
comes from this Greek root. Indeed, such versions as Moffatt,
Twentieth Century, Authentic, Phillips, NEB, New Berkeley, NAB
and Jerusalem overtly state that the sun was eclipsed. Whileversions such as NASB, TEV and NIV avoid the word "eclipse", thenormal meaning of the eclectic text that they follow is "the sun being
eclipsed".2
Mark 6:22"autes tes Hrodiados" ([the daughter] herself of Herodias) – A, C, E, G, H,
K, M, N, S, U, V(W,θ)Υ, Γ, Π, Σ, Φ, Ω, f(1)13, 33, Byz, Lect, lat,(syr,cop,Diat)
autou ... Hrodiados (his [daughter] Herodias) – Aleph, B, D, L, Δ

Problem: UBS in Mark 6:22 contradicts UBS in Matthew 14:6
Discussion: Matthew 14:6 states that the girl was the daughter of
Herodias (the former wife of Philip, King Herod's [Herod Antipas]
1

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, (New York: United Bible Societies,1971), pp. 137–138.

2

Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 242. Metzger
dismisses the reading of the vast majority of the MSS as "the easier reading" (p. 182).

242

Examples of Modern Criticism

Appendix C

brother, who was then living with Herod). Here UBS makes the girlout to be Herod's own daughter, and calls her "Herodias". Metzger
defends the choice of the UBS Committee with these words: "It is very
difficult to decide which reading is the least unsatisfactory" (p. 89)!
The modern versions, usually identifying with UBS, part company
with this rendering.
Matthew 5:22
eikh (without a cause) – 01c, D, E, K, L, M, S, U, V, W, Δ, θ, Π, Σ,
0233, f1,13, 33, Byz, Lect, it, syr, cop, Diat
(missing!) – P67, Aleph*, B, 045, vg

Problem: A contradiction is introduced – cp. Eph.4:26, Psa.4:4, etc.
Anger is to be controlled and properly directed, but not absolutely
forbidden (as the UBS reading does, in effect).
Discussion: Anger is ascribed to Jesus (Mk.3:5) and to God,
repeatedly. Again Metzger appeals, in effect, to the "harder reading":"it is much more likely that the word was added by copyists in orderto soften the rigor of the precept, than omitted as unnecessary"(p. 13). Are there not other reasons why it might have been omitted?
The external evidence against the omission is massive, as well as
being the earliest. Most modern versions join UBS in this error.
I Corinthians 5:1
onomazetai (is named) – P68, 01c, 044, Byz, syr(missing) – P46, Aleph*, A, B, C, D, F, G, 33, lat, cop

Problem: It was reported that a man had his father's wife, a type of
fornication such that not even the Gentiles spoke of it.
Notwithstanding, the UBS text affirms that this type of incest did noteven exist among the Gentiles – a plain falsehood.
Discussion: Strangely, such evangelical versions as NIV, NASB,
Berkeley and LB propagate this error. Interestingly, versions such as
TEV, NEB and Jerusalem, while following the same text, avoid acategorical statement.1
1

The UBS apparatus gives no inkling to the user that there is serious variation at thispoint; Metzger also doesn't mention it.

243

Examples of Modern Criticism

Appendix C

Luke 3:33
tou Aminadab (of Aminadab) & tou Aram (of Aram) – A, E, G, K, N,
U, Δ, Π, Ψ, 047, 0211 (D,Θ)+7unc, 33, Byz, Lect, lat, syrp,htou Aminadab (of Aminadab), tou Admin (of Admin), & tou Arni (of Arni)

tou Admein,
tou Adam,
tou Adam,
tou Adam,
tou Admein,
tou Aminadab,
tou Aminadab,
tou Aminadab
tou Aminadab
tou Aminadab

tou Admin,
tou Admein,
tou Admin,
tou Admin,
tou Admin,
tou Admh,
tou Admein,
tou Admein,

tou Arnei
tou Arni?
tou Arnei
tou Arnei
tou Arni
tou Arnei
tou Arhi
tou Arni
tou Arni
tou Aram-B- syrs- 01*- copsa- copbo
- 01c
- f13
-X
-L
0102 (P4?)

Problem: The fictitious "Admin" and "Arni" have been intruded into
Christ's genealogy.
Discussion: UBS has misrepresented the evidence in its apparatus
so as to hide the fact that no Greek MS has the precise text it has
printed – a text which is a veritable "patchwork quilt". In Metzger's
presentation of the UBS Committee's reasoning, he writes, "theCommittee adopted what seems to be the least unsatisfactory form oftext" (p. 136). The UBS editors concoct their own reading andproclaim it "the least unsatisfactory"! What is so "unsatisfactory"
about the reading of the vast majority of the MSS except that it
doesn't introduce any difficulties?
There is complete confusion in the Egyptian camp. That confusionmust have commenced in the second century, resulting from several
easy transcriptional errors, simple copying mistakes. "ARAM" to"ARNI" is very easy (in the early centuries only upper case letterswere used); with a scratchy quill the cross strokes in the "A" and "M"
could be light, and a subsequent copyist could mistake the left leg ofthe "M" as going with the "K" to make "N", and the right leg of the"M" would become "I".

244

Examples of Modern Criticism

Appendix C

Very early Aminadab was misspelled as Aminadam, which survives
in some 25% of the extant MSS. The "Adam" of a, syrs and copsa arose
through an easy instance of homoioarcton (the eye of a copyist wentfrom the first "A" in "Aminadam" to the second, dropping "Amin" andleaving "Adam"). "A" and "D" are easily confused, especially when
written by hand.
"Admin" presumably came from "AMINadab", though the process wasmore complicated. The "i" of "Admin" and "Arni" is corrupted to "ei"in Codex B (a frequent occurrence in that MS). Codex a conflated theancestor that produced "Adam" with the one that produced "Admin",etc. The total confusion in Egypt should not surprise us, but how
shall we account for the text and apparatus of UBS3 in this instance?
And whatever possessed the editors of NASB, RSV, TEV, LB,
Berkeley, etc. to embrace such an outrageous error?1 Not one MSS
has this reading!
Matthew 19:17
Ti me legeis agathon; oudeis agathos ei me eis, ho Theos (Why do you call me
good? No one is good but one, God) – C, E, F, H, K, M, S, U, V, W, Y, Δ,
Σ, Φ, Ω, f13, 33, Byz, Lect, syrp,h, copsa, Diat
Ti me erotas peri tou agathou; eis estin ho agathos (Why do you ask me
about the good? one is good) – Aleph, L, Θ(B,D,f1,syrs)
Ti me erotas peri tou agathou; eis estin ho agathos, ho Theos – lat, syrc,
copbo

Problem: UBS in Matthew 19:17 contradicts UBS in Mark 10:18
and Luke 18:19 (wherein all texts agree here with the Byzantine).

1

Luke 3:33 offers yet another related textual difficulty. The H-F Majority Text (not theTR) has been misled by von Soden and inserts Joram between Aram and Hezron. Out of
26 extant uncials only nine read Joram; 17 do not, and they are supported by the threeearliest Versions.
Joram was probably an early corruption of Aram that was
subsequently conflated with it; the conflation survives in a large segment of the
Byzantine tradition, which is seriously divided here. It is possible that defenders of theeclectic text will appeal to the case of Cainan in verse 36 as being analogous to "Admin"and "Arni". Cainan as son of Arphaxad does not occur in the Masoretic Text, but does in
the Septuagint. Any analogy must be denied as "Cainan" is attested by all texts, whereas
the UBS reading in verse 33 is the creation of the editors, based on the complete
hodgepodge among the "Egyptian" witnesses.

245

Examples of Modern Criticism

Appendix C

Discussion: Presumably Jesus spoke in Aramaic, but there is no
way that whatever He said could legitimately yield the last twotranslations into Greek given above.1 That the Latin versions offer aconflation suggests that both the other variants must have existed in
the second century. Indeed, the Diatessaron overtly places the
Byzantine reading in the first half of that century.
During the 2nd century, the Church in Egypt was dominated by
Gnosticism. That such a "nice" Gnostic variant came into being is no
surprise, but why do modern editors embrace it? Because it is the"more obscure one" (Metzger, page 49). This "obscurity" was so
attractive to the UBS Committee that they printed another"patchwork quilt". The precise text of UBS3 is found only in thecorrector of Codex B. Further, no two of the main Greek MSS given
as supporting this eclectic text (a,B,D,L,Θ,f1) precisely agree! Most
modern versions join UBS in this error also.
John 6:11
tois mathetais, hoi de mathetai (to the disciples, and the disciples) – 01c,
D, 038, 044, f13, Byz(syrs)(all missing) – P66,75vid, Aleph*, A, B, L, N, W, 063, f1, 33, lat, syrc,h, cop

Problem: UBS in John 6:11 contradicts UBS in Mat.14:19, Mk.6:41
and Luk.9:16 (all agree here with the Byzantine).
Discussion: Mat.14:19, Mk.6:41 and Luk.9:16 all have Jesus giving
the broken bread and fish to the disciples, who then distributed to thecrowd. They do not have Jesus Himself giving directly to the crowd.
The attempt to defend the UBS reading here by an appeal to an"analogy" like Herod's slaughter of the innocents is lame. Mat.2:16
records that Herod "sent and killed" all the male children in
Bethlehem, but the actual killing would have been done by soldiers,
not by Herod the Great himself. But even this statement says that he"sent", which overtly means it was an order carried out by others.
John 6:11 is in the middle of a detailed narrative account wherein thedisciples have already been actively participating. In fact, verse 10
1

In His teaching on general themes, the Lord Jesus presumably repeated Himself manytimes, using a variety of expressions and variations on those themes. But in this case weare dealing with a specific conversation, which in all likelihood was not repeated.

246

Examples of Modern Criticism

Appendix C

records that Jesus had given them an order. The UBS rendering ofverse 11 is unacceptable.1 Inconceivably, almost all modern versions
join UBS in this error.
Acts 19:16
auton (them) – H, L, P, S, Ψ, Byz, syrs
amfoteron (both of them) – P, Aleph, A, B, D, 33, syrp, cop

Problem: The sons of Sceva were seven, not two.
Discussion: To argue that "both" can mean "all" on the basis of thispassage is to beg the question. An appeal to Acts 23:8 is likewise
unconvincing. "For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection – andno angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both. "Angel" and"spirit", if not intended as synonyms, at least belong to a single class,spirit beings. However, the Pharisees believed in "both" – theresurrection and spirit beings.
There is no basis here for claiming that "both" can legitimately referto seven (Acts 19:16).2 Yet, most modern versions do render "both" as"all". The NASV actually renders "both of them", making thecontradiction overt!
Matthew 1:7–8
Asa (Asa) – E, K, L, M, S, U, V, W, Γ, Δ, Π, Σ, Ω, 33, Byz, Lect, latpt, syr
Asaph (Asaph) – Aleph, B, C, f1,13, latpt, cop

Problem: Asaph does not belong in Jesus' genealogy.

1

As in 1 Corinthians 5:1, the UBS apparatus again gives the user no inkling that there isserious variation at this point. Metzger also offers no comment.

2

Metzger's discussion is interesting: "The difficulty of reconciling [seven] with [both],however, is not so great as to render the text which includes both an impossible text. On
the other hand, however, the difficulty is so troublesome that it is hard to explain how[seven] came into the text, and was perpetuated, if it were not original..". (pp. 471–472).
Note that Metzger assumes the genuineness of "both" and discusses the difficulty that it
creates as if it were fact. His assumption is baseless and the difficulty it creates is theresult of his presuppositions.

247

Examples of Modern Criticism

Appendix C

Discussion: Asaph was a Levite, not of the tribe of Judah; he was a
psalmist, not a king. It is clear from Metzger's comments that the
UBS editors understand that their reading refers to the Levite (p. 1).
In fact, "Asaph" is probably not a misspelling of "Asa". Not counting
Asa and Amon (see v.10), Codex B misspells 13 names in this chapter;
Codex a misspells 10. These misspellings involve dittography, genderchange, or a similar sound ("z" for "s", "d" for "t", "m" for "n"). They
are not harmless misspellings such as adding an extraneous
consonant, like "f", or trading dissimilar sounds, like "s" for "n".
In response to Lagrange, who considered "Asaph" to be an ancientscribal error, Metzger writes: "Since, however, the evangelist may
have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament
directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, in which theerroneous spelling occurred, the Committee saw no reason to adopt
what appears to be a scribal emendation" (p. 1).
Thus Metzger frankly declares that the spelling they have adopted is"erroneous". The UBS editors have deliberately imported an error
into their text, which is faithfully reproduced by NAB (New American
Bible). RSV and NASB add a footnote stating that the Greek reads"Asaph". It would be less misleading had they said that a tiny
fraction of the Greek MSS so read. The case of Amon vs. Amos inverse 10 is analogous to this.
Matthew 10:10
mede hrabdous (neither staffs) – C, E, F, G, K, L, M, N, P, S, U, V, W, Y,
Γ, Δ, Π, Σ, Φ, Ω, f13, Byz, syrh, copbo
mede hrabdon (neither a staff) – Aleph, B, D, Θ, f1, 33, lat, syrp, copsa

Problem: In both Matthew 10:10 and Luke 9:3 UBS has "neither astaff", thus contradicting Mark 6:8 where all texts have "only a staff".
Discussion: In Luke and Matthew the Byzantine text reads "neither
staffs", which does not contradict Mark. The case of the staffs isanalogous to that of the tunics; they were to take only one, notseveral. A superficial reader would probably expect the singular.
That some scribe in Egypt should simplify "staffs" to "a staff" comesas no surprise, but why do the UBS editors import this error into
their text? Almost all modern versions follow UBS here and in Luke
9:3.

248

Examples of Modern Criticism

Appendix C

John 7:8
oupo (not yet) – P66,75, B, L, T, W, X, Δ, Θ, Ψ, f1,13, Byz, Lect, syrpt, cop,
Diatptouk (not) – Aleph, D, K, Π, lat, syrpt, Diatpt

Problem: Since Jesus did in fact go to the feast (and doubtless knewthat He was going), the UBS text makes Him a liar.
Discussion: Since the UBS editors usually attach the highest value
to P75 and B, isn't it strange that they reject them in this case? Hereis Metzger's explanation: "The reading ["not yet"] was introduced at
an early date (it is attested by P66,75) in order to alleviate theinconsistency between ver. 8 and ver. 10" (p. 216). So, they rejected
P66,75 and B because they preferred the "inconsistency". NASV, RSV,NEB and TEV read the same as the eclectic text.
Acts 28:13
perielthontes (fetched a compass) – P74, 01c, A, P, 048, 056, 066, 0142,
Byz, Lect, syrp,hperielontes (taking away [something]) – Aleph*, B, Ψ, copsa(bo)Problem: The verb chosen by UBS, "periairew", is transitive, and ismeaningless here.
Discussion: Metzger's lame explanation is that a majority of the
UBS Committee took the word to be "a technical nautical term of
uncertain meaning" (p. 501)! Why do they choose to disfigure the text
on such poor evidence when there is an easy transcriptional
explanation? The Greek letters omicron (ο) and theta (θ) are very
similar. When one follows the other in a word, it would be easy todrop out one of them, in this case the "theta".
The word"perielthontes", which means "sailed in a circuitous route", is hardly"a technical nautical term".
2 Peter 3:10
katakaesetai (shall be burned up) – A, 048, 049, 056, 0142, 33, Byz,
Lect, lat, syrh, copbo
heurethesetai (shall be found) – (P72)Aleph, B, K, P, syrph (copsa)

Problem: The UBS reading is nonsensical; the context is clearly oneof judgment.

249

Examples of Modern Criticism

Appendix C

Discussion: Metzger actually states that their text "seems to be
devoid of meaning in the context" (p. 706)! So why did they choose it?
Metzger explains that there is "a wide variety of readings, none ofwhich seems to be original". "Shall be burned up" certainly cannot be
said to be meaningless. NASV abandons UBS here, giving the
Byzantine reading; NEB and NIV render "laid bare"; TEV has "willvanish".
The previous examples may not strike the reader as being uniformly
convincing; however, there is a cumulative effect. By ingenuity andmental gymnastics, it may be possible to appear to circumvent one or
another of these examples but with each added instance, credibility
decreases. One or two such circumventions may be deemed as possible,
but five or six become highly improbable. There are dozens of further
examples any one of which taken singly may not seem to be all thatalarming. But they too have a cumulative effect and dozens of themshould give the responsible reader pause. Is there a pattern? If so, why?
But for now, enough has been presented to permit us to turn to theimplications.

IMPLICATIONS

1

How is all of this to be explained? The answer lies in the area ofpresuppositions. There has been a curious reluctance on the part ofconservative scholars to come to grips with this matter. To assume thatthe editorial choices of an unbelieving scholar will not be influenced byhis theological bias is naive in the extreme.
To be sure, both such scholars and the conservative defenders of theeclectic text will doubtless reply "Not at all – our editorial choices arederived from a most straightforward application of the generally acceptedcanons of N.T. textual criticism". And what are those canons? As statedin chapters VI and VII herein, the four main ones are:(1) the reading that best accounts for the rise of the other reading(s) is to bepreferred;(2) the harder reading is to be preferred;
1

The reader is reminded that this Appendix has been adapted from Dr. Pickering's 1990
What Difference Does It Make? Beginning at this section to the end of Appendix C has
been adapted from his pp. 12–16.

250

Examples of Modern Criticism

Appendix C(3) the "shorter" is to be preferred; and(4) the reading that best fits the author's style and purpose is to bepreferred.

From B.M. Metzger's presentation of the UBS Committee's reasoning in
the cited examples, it appears that for nearly half their decision was
based on the "harder reading canon". But, how are we to decide which
variant is "harder"? Will not our theological bias enter in?
Consider, for example, Luke 24:52. The Nestle editions 1–25 omit "theyworshipped him" (and in consequence NASV, RSV and NEB do also).
UBS retains the words, but with a {D} grade (a very high degree of
doubt). Yet only one solitary Greek manuscript omits the words (Codex
D) supported by part of the Latin witness. In spite of the very slim
external evidence for the omission, it is argued that it is the "harder"
reading.
If the clause were original, what orthodox Christian would even think ofremoving it? On the other hand, the clause would make a nice pious
addition that would immediately become popular, if the original lacked it.
However, not only did the Gnostics dominate the Christian church in
Egypt in the second century, there were also others who did not believethat Jesus was God come in the flesh. As unbelievers, would they belikely to resist the impulse to delete such a statement?
How shall we choose between these two hypotheses? Will it not be on thebasis of our presuppositions? Indeed, in discussing this variant, alongwith Hort's other "Western non-interpolations", Metzger explains (p. 193)
that a minority of the UBS committee argued that "there is discernable inthese passages a Christological-theological motivation that accounts fortheir having been added, while there is no clear reason that accounts fortheir having been omitted". Had no one on the entire committee ever
heard of the Gnostics?

THE MYTH OF NEUTRALITY
The myth of neutrality and scholarly objectivity needs forever to be laid
to rest. Anyone who has been inside the academic community knows that
it is liberally sprinkled with bias, party lines, fads, vendettas, personal
ambition, spite, and just plain meanness – quite apart from those with a
hatred of the truth of personal accountability to an intelligent and moral
sovereign Creator. Neutrality and objectivity should never be assumed,

251

Examples of Modern Criticism

Appendix C

most especially when dealing with God's Truth – because in this area
neither God nor Satan will permit neutrality. The Lord Jesus said: "He
who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me
scatters abroad (Mat.12:30)". Thus, God Himself declares that neutrality
is impossible; one is either for Him or against Him.
Christ Jesus clearly and unmistakably claims to be God. Faced with sucha claim we have only two options, to accept or reject ("Agnosticism" isreally a passive rejection). The Bible claims to be God's Word. Again our
options are but two. It follows that when dealing with the text ofScripture, neutrality is impossible.
The Bible is clear about satanic interference in the minds of humanbeings, and most especially when they are considering God's Truth.
II Corinthians 4:4 states plainly that the god of this age/world blinds theminds of unbelievers when they are confronted with the Gospel. The
Lord Jesus said the same thing when He explained the parable of thesower: "When they hear, Satan comes immediately and takes away theword that was sown in their hearts" (Mk.4:15, Lk.8:12).
Furthermore, there is a pervasive satanic influence upon all humanculture. I John 5:19 states that "the whole world lies in wickedness".
The picture is clearly one of massive influence, if not control. All humanculture is under pervasive satanic influence, including the culture of theacademic community. Ephesians 2:2 is even more precise: "in which you
once walked according to the course of this world, according to the princeof the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons ofdisobedience". Satan actively works in the mind of anyone who rejects
God's authority over him. For someone who claims to believe God's Word
to accept an edition of the Bible that was prepared by unbelievers is toignore the teaching of that Word.
Interpretation is preeminently a matter of wisdom. An unbelieving
textual critic may have a reasonable acquaintance with the relevant
evidence, he may have knowledge of the facts, but that by no means
implies that he knows what to do with it. "The fear of the Lord is the
beginning of wisdom" (Prov.9:10). Thus the unbeliever has none, atleast from God's point of view. Wisdom is not the same as I.Q.,
knowledge or education. It is not merely the acquisition of facts. It
entails knowing what to do with those facts. This comes not only fromthe experiences of life, but above all else – by the guiding and revelationfrom God. Anyone who edits or translates the text of Scripture needs to252

Examples of Modern Criticism

Appendix C

be in spiritual condition such that he can ask the Holy Spirit to illumine
him in his work as well as protect his mind from the enemy.

WHY USE SUBJECTIVE CANONS?
It is clear that the four canons mentioned above depend heavily upon thesubjective judgment of the critic. But why use such canons? Why notfollow the mss evidence and faith in God's promises?
It is commonly argued that the surviving manuscripts are notrepresentative of the textual condition in the early centuries of the
Church. The official destruction of MSS by Diocletian (A.D. 300), andothers, is supposed to have decimated the supply of MSS such that thetransmission was totally distorted to the extent that, presumably, we
cannot be sure about anything. Such an argument not only "justifies" theeclectic proceeding, it is used to maintain its "necessity". However, theeffectiveness of the Diocletian campaign was uneven in different regions.
Even more to the point are the implications of the Donatist movement
which developed right after the Diocletian campaign. It was predicatedin part on punishing those who had betrayed their manuscripts todestruction during the recent persecution. Obviously, some did not
betray their MSS or there would have been no one to judge the others.
Moreover those whose commitment to Christ and His Word was such thatthey who withstood the torture would be the most careful about thepedigree of their MSS. Hence, the purest specimens would have been themost likely to have survived. The main stream of transmission would
have this fountain as its origin.
Since the Byzantine (majority) textform dominates over 90% of the extant
MSS, those who wish to reject it cannot concede the possibility that thetransmission of the text was in any sense normal. If it had been, then the
majority must reflect the original wording, especially since the consensus
is so massive. Thus, it is argued that the "ballot box" was "stuffed" – thatthe Byzantine text was imposed by ecclesiastical authority, but only after
it was systematically concocted from other older texts in the early 4th
century. Yet, as we have already stated, there exists absolutely nohistorical evidence to support this conjecture.
Also, numerous studies have demonstrated that the mass of Byzantine
MSS are not monolithic; there are many distinct strands or strains oftransmission, seemingly independent. Some of these go back to the third

253

Examples of Modern Criticism

Appendix C

century (if not earlier). This is demonstrated by Codex a in that it
conflates some of those strands in Revelation. Asterius, a pupil of Lucianof Antioch (d. 341) used MSS that were clearly Byzantine.
His
Syntagmation is generally believed to have been published before theCouncil of Nicea (325); accordingly, his MSS would have been 3rd
century.
But why is "the shorter reading to be preferred?" Because, we are told,
scribes had a propensity to add bits and pieces to the text. But thatwould have to be a deliberate act, for it has been demonstrated that
accidental loss of place (a parablepsis) results in omission far more often
than addition. For the most part, the only way to add accidentally is tocopy part of the text twice, however the copyist would have to be really
drowsy not to catch himself at it. So, any time a shorter reading could be
the result of parablepsis, it should be viewed with suspicion.
Even when deliberate, omission should still be more frequent thanaddition. If there is something in the text that someone doesn't like, it
attracts his attention and he may be tempted to do something about it.
Correspondingly, it requires more imagination and effort to create newmaterial to add than to delete that which is already there. Material
suggested by a parallel passage would be an exception. Further, it has
been demonstrated that most scribes were careful and conscientious,
avoiding even unintentional mistakes. Those who engaged in deliberate
editorial activity were really rather few, but some were flagrant offenders(like Aleph in Revelation).
Why is "the harder reading to be preferred?" The assumption is that aperceived difficulty would motivate an officious copyist to attempt a"remedy". But in the case of a such a presumed deliberate alteration,
how can degrees of "hardness" actually be ascribed? We don't know who
did it or why. Due allowance must be made for possible ignorance,
officiousness, prejudice, and malice.
Moreover, this canon is
unreasonable for the more absurd a reading is, whether by accident ordesign, the better is its claim to be "original" since it will certainly be the"hardest".
It does not take a prophet or an apostle to see that this canon is wide
open to satanic manipulation, both in the original creation of variants
and in their present day evaluation.
Nevertheless, since it isdemonstrable that most copyists did not make deliberate changes, where
there is massive agreement among the extant MSS this canon should not254

Examples of Modern Criticism

Appendix Ceven be considered. Indeed, where there is massive agreement among
the MSS none of the subjective canons should be used – they are
unnecessary and out of place. Of the more than 6,000 differences
between UBS3 and the Textus Receptus, the vast majority of the readings
preferred by the UBS editors have slender MS attestation. That liberal
critics would reject the witness of the MSS in favor of subjective
considerations should come as no surprise; but why do conservative
believers embrace their conclusions?

CONCLUSIONIn Jesus' day there were those who "loved the praise of men more thanthe praise of God" (John 12:43), and they are with us still. But, the"praise of men" comes at a high price. One must accept their value
system, a value system that suffers direct satanic influence. To accept
the world's value system is basically an act of treason against King Jesus;
it is a kind of idolatry. Those conservative scholars who place a highvalue on "academic recognition", on being acknowledged by the "academic
community", and known for "scholastic excellence", etc., need to ask
themselves about the presuppositions that lie behind such recognition.
We are not decrying true scholarship. We are challenging conservatives
to make sure that their definition of scholarship comes from the Holy
Spirit, not from the world. Were this implemented, there would be a
dramatic shift in the conservative Christian world with reference to thepractice of N.T. textual criticism and to the identity of the true N.T. text.
What difference does it all make? Not only do we have the confusioncaused by two rather different competing forms of the Greek text, but oneof them (the eclectic text) incorporates errors and contradictions that
undermine the doctrine of inspiration and invalidate the doctrine ofinerrancy. The other (the Traditional majority Text) does not. The firstis based on subjective criteria, applied by liberal critics; the second isbased on the consensus of the manuscript tradition and actual usage by
the true followers (the real Church) down through the centuries.
Because the conservative evangelical schools and churches have generally
embraced the theory (and therefore the presuppositions) that underlies
the eclectic text (UBS3 – Nestle26), there has been ongoing compromise or
defection within the evangelical camp with reference to the doctrines of
Biblical inspiration and especially inerrancy. The authority of Scripture
has been greatly undermined; no longer does it command immediate and255

Examples of Modern Criticism

Appendix C

unquestioned obedience. Consequently, there is a generalized softeningof our basic commitment to Christ and His Kingdom. Equally dismaying,through our missionaries we have exported all of this to the emerging
churches in the "third world". Alas! Truly, the ancient landmark is being
removed (Prov.22:28)!
What then shall we do, throw up our hands in despair? Indeed no! With
God's help let the people of God work to undo the damage. We must startby consciously making certain that all our presuppositions, our working
assumptions, are consistent with God's Word. If we approach theevidence – the Greek MSS, patristic citations, ancient versions and mostespecially, God's many promises to preserve His Word – if we
acknowledge the fact that the faithful have used the Textus Receptus astheir N.T. down through the years as retained to this day by the Greek
Church; we will have a credible, demonstrable basis for proclaiming anddefending both the inspiration as well as the inerrancy of the New
Testament text. We have a compelling basis for total commitment to
God and His Word. The trumpet has been clearly sounded (I Cor.14:8).
Whom will you believe? What will you do?

256

APPENDIX D – HISTORY OF TEXTSTRANSMISSION
It has been established that textual critics acknowledge that without aviable history of the transmission of the Biblical text, lower criticism isunworkable as the choice between variants becomes reduced ultimately
to subjective conjecture (page 130). This was the reason Hort devised his
genealogical-conflation theory and invented the Lucianic revision (page120 ff.). It has also been noted that modern eclecticism is likewise
doomed to failure as its proponents basically ignore this vital component(page 127). Yet incongruously, we have further documented from thecitations of leading moderns that, without a history of the text, criticaltechniques are unable to determine and hence restore an "original"
reading (page 146).
Remember, there is no actual recorded history regarding thetransmission of the New Testament documents. We have the resulting
manuscripts of that transmission and now are faced with the problem ofattempting to work backward while seeking to establish a reasonable,
logical history which would account for the present condition of those
documents and their variants. This hypothetical reconstructed history
must especially account for the fact that we have no extant mss of the
Byzantine Textform predating A.D. 400 as this is the most common
criticism charged against the TR/Majority Text position by thenaturalistic critics.
Indeed this appears a formidable and valid objection since no physicaldata is available which might be used for refutation. As previously
stated, all the extant early manuscript evidence comes from the arid
Egyptian region and reflects the mixed types of text prevalent there
during the second century.
The fact that the Church was experiencing great and prolonged
persecution during the first few centuries under discussion forms thebasis for understanding, unraveling, and explaining the current status of
the extant mss data. Taking into account this single historical fact forms
the setting for establishing a comprehensible solution and defense for the
Byzantine (Syrian) texttype as well as the phenomenon present in the257History of Texts Transmission

Appendix Dother text "Families".1 Toward achieving the above stated purpose, theforegoing is offered as a general historical framework.
Having been initially written in Koine or common Greek, thegeographical region in which that language flourished and from whence
the autographs originated would tend to act as a safe haven for theoriginal wording. That region would center around Jerusalem (Gal.2:1–9;
Acts 21:17–20 etc.), Syria (especially Antioch from whence Barnabas andPaul labored – Acts 11:25–26; 14:26–28; 15:35; 18:22–23 etc.) extending to
the western portion of Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece.
Indeed, Antioch became Paul's home church from which he launched histhree missionary journeys. As the Hebrew people were populous in thisarea and since most of the early Church was comprised of Jews who hadreceived Jesus as the long awaited Messiah, these followers would havebeen especially jealous over the New Testament readings for such had
been their culture and tradition regarding the Old Testament. Therefore,
the manuscripts in this "inner" zone would maintain their purity as
appeal to the apostles' autographs (or faithful copies of same) would havebeen possible for many years after their having been written.
Here a qualifying clarification is necessary to distinguish between thatwhich we might label "Church manuscripts" and "Non-church
manuscripts".2 By "Church" manuscripts is meant those used by theearly Churches during public worship and those prepared and distributed
from local churches to individual Christians.
The "Non-church"
designation refers to documents prepared by individuals for personal use
outside the church context proper. It is the former that this author
defends as being that text to which God's preservation promises apply,
not the "Non-church" copies which account for the numerous variant
readings.
Conversely, when the early faithfully copied manuscripts of the
autographs arrived in regions distant from their sources (in which the1

Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont, The New Testament in the Original Greek
According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform, (Atlanta, GA: The Original Word Pub.,
1991), pp. xxvi–xxxviii.
Many of the insights included within this historicalreconstruction were gleaned and adapted from the introduction of this work. Of course as
the authors, like Pickering et al., are purely Majority Text advocates (vis-a-vis the Textus
Receptus) and thus "limited restorationists" (shunning theological factors andprovidential preservation considerations as well, see his pp. xli–xlii), some disparities will
be found between their approach and that of this author's.

2

Ibid., p. xxviii.

258

History of Texts Transmission

Appendix D

Hebrew mind-set regarding Sacred Writ was greatly diminished and theGentile frame of reference prevailed), far less constraint would haveexisted against altering their wording in such locales. This proposal issubstantiated by that which prevails even today. The Rabbis continue tosafeguard the wording of the Hebrew text; yet, from the days of Marcion
and Origen through those of Westcott and Hort unto the present, Gentile
scholars – whether unregenerate or Christian conservative – continue toalter the wording of the New Testament, producing edition after edition.
Regardless of motives, over time "popular" alterations and regional aswell as personal "corrections" would have been combined in a continual
process of scribal corruption. As the various altered mss were crosscorrected with others possessing differing readings, an admixture of texts
would have resulted. Thus, in the first few centuries some localities
experienced uncontrolled non-church types of copies which were widelydistributed throughout those areas. These circumstances would havebeen further complicated due to ever increasing persecution to which the
Church was subjected. This persecution would have effectively served asa barrier, hindering movement from region to region thereby cutting offvital controlling and correcting factors.
The reversal of such an uncontrolled process could only have been due tothe existence of a protected original autographic text. Otherwise theresult would have been that of a patch-work quilt of variant readings
created by the individualistic scribes with no prevailing "majority" text
ever coming to the fore. Such in fact was the very situation when Jeromewas commissioned to attempt to make sense out of the Old Latintranslation and produce a "standard text" in order to unify the Latin
tradition.1 Apart from a similar Byzantine revision (of which there is no
historical evidence), the dominance of this textform cannot besatisfactorily explained by those who reject the TR as representing theoriginal readings. Only the persisting existence of the autographic text
for comparison against these corrupted manuscripts would have everallowed order to have come out of such chaos.
Thus the proposed theory is that, due to the events and circumstances inwhich the New Testament documents were copied over the time span of
the first three centuries, the original Text rapidly deteriorated into thevarious uncontrolled popular texts which prevailed in differing localities
1

Robinson, The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine/Majority
Textform, op. cit., p. xxix.

259

History of Texts Transmission

Appendix Dthat were removed from the general Greek speaking Syrian area. Overthe normal process of copying and re-copying during which scribal"improvements", "corrections", blunders, and cross-correlation changes
from other exemplars added to the corruption process, these "popular"
texts eventually would have developed into the distinctive local text
forms which centered around the metropolitan regions. These became
the birthplaces of differing "texttypes" such as the Western, Alexandrian,and Caesarean (if such an entity actually exists) as well as others which
may have been produced but have long since vanished due to a moist
climate hostile to their preservation.
The foregoing would have dramatically changed with the advent ofConstantine (288–337 A.D.). Upon his granting the Church official
endorsement and acceptance, the predominantly "local" nature of thescattered churches became permanently altered. Approval from thethrone precipitated greater freedom to the individual Christians resulting
in wider travel with greater communication and intercourse between the
churches from region to region all across the Empire.
A natural consequence of this would have been the cross-comparison andsubsequent correction of these local textforms once they could becompared to the faithful copies of the archetype which had been
providentially preserved in the Syrian Churches – the very cradle ofChristianity. Thus the archetype itself – the Textus Receptus – would
then have been available on a major scale for correcting the various local
texttypes.
This spontaneous "improvement" would have proceeded on a numericaland geographical scale far greater than ever before possible; nevertheless,it would have taken some period of time until the result would have fully
manifested itself. Slowly yet inevitably, nearly all the manuscripts would
tend toward a common and universally shared text. Still, some minor
distinct readings would have remained yielding their own subgroups
among the manuscripts. This "universal text" would have been the only
one which could closely approach the common archetype from which all
the local text forms had originated. This scenario views this emergent"Byzantine" (Syrian) text as being almost exclusively that of the "nonchurch" variety described previously whereas the archetype which gave itlife is of the "Church manuscript" – namely, the autograph form itself.1
1Herein lies the main conceptional difference between Robinson's theory of thetransmission of the N.T. text and the present author's, cp. Robinson's p. xxxi.

260

History of Texts Transmission

Appendix D

The present theory envisions many more "non-church" copies resulting
from the above described process than those in the Syrian churches
themselves. The increasing number of manuscripts would slowly haveovercome the influence of "local" texts to eventually become the dominanttext of the Greek-speaking world. This accounts for both the origin anddominance of Byzantine/majority Textform as well as the fact that the
Greek Church continues to use the Textus Receptus exclusively.
Allusion has been made within the body of this study that scribes are
assumed by critics to tend to alter the text being copied into readings
with which they are more familiar. Such harmonizing was not a major
factor among Byzantine-era scribes as may be proven by comparing theextant N.T. documents themselves.
Were this type of alteration
widespread, how does one account for the numerous often obvious andsensitive places left completely unchanged. Citing from his own Ph.D.
dissertation on the subject of scribal habits, Maurice Robinson states:1"Byzantine-era scribes as a whole were less inclined to
gratuitously alter the text before them than simply to performtheir given duty. It was the earlier scribes in some locales who,
during the uncontrolled 'popular' era of persecution and theinitial years of Imperial 'freedom,' felt more at liberty to deal
with the text as they saw fit.

This suggested transmissional history exposes the fallacy of the maxim"oldest is best". Again, it is not the age of the manuscript itself. The
issue is the age and reliability of the text contained within the
manuscript – that is the real substance of the matter. Robinson is correctwhen he reminds us that:2
1

Robinson, The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine/Majority
Textform, op. cit., p. xxxiv. Robinson continues adding that if the Byzantine readings in
the early Fathers which are being summarily dismissed by the critics were legitimately
included, the Father's overall text would be seen as being more Byzantine than iscurrently acknowledged by these scholars – exactly as Burgon contended a century ago.
Burgon was ignored because he used "uncritical" editions of the Fathers. Today's"critical" editions eliminate distinctive Byzantine readings in places where they are
unconfirmed by direct comment.
Robinson states that were this practice not
implemented, the Fathers' writings would be recognized as containing many more
Byzantine readings than current opinion allows. The present reconstruction of thehistory of transmission would account for the presence of a Byzantine Textform in thewritings of the 5th-century Fathers.

2

Robinson, The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine/Majority
Textform, op. cit., pp. xxxvi–xxxvii.

261

History of Texts Transmission

Appendix D"Most early manuscripts in existence today have been affectedby the uncontrolled nature of textual transmission whichprevailed in their local areas, as well as by the persecutions
which came continually against the church. The whole matter of
early copying practices is hypothetical, regardless of which
textual theory one prefers. We know nothing beyond what canbe deduced from what survives. In the early papyri, we may
have only personal copies, and not those which were generally
used by the churches themselves. Also, the papyri all come froma single geographic area, and reflect a good deal of corruption,
both accidental and deliberate".

Moreover, it is reasonable to presume that most early copies – many
having been made directly from the autographs themselves – would havebeen as accurate as care would permit. In particular, the Churches in thegeneral Syrian region would not have knowingly allowed defective copies
to have been sent forth. The persecution would have engendered deep
abiding commitment resulting in the appearance of responsible,
dedicated scribes. Thus the first and second copying generations would
have yielded faithful reproductions of the sacred deposit.
In view of the existing confused status of the surviving Greek papyrus
and uncial MSS, the herein contained general reconstruction of thehistory of textual transmission seems not only justified but demanded.
Only the continual process of manuscript comparison and cross-correction
carried out over the centuries would have succeeded in "weeding out" theearly scribal corruption and conflicting variant readings. The increased
cross-cultural travel and communication which followed Constantine's
formal act of tolerance and legitimization of Christianity would have had
the natural effect of slowly purging from the manuscripts the conspicuous
as well as the less obvious early adulterations. This course would haveresulted in a truly "older" and purer text. Such a process would not havebeen possible unless the basic text of all the Greek manuscripts had been
essentially "secure".
After the 9th century the production of most uncial MSS ceased and weresystematically replaced by the miniscule style. These predominated until
the invention of printing. This "copying revolution" resulted in thedestruction of hundreds of previously-existing uncial MSS once they had
been copied in cursive script.

262

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aland, Kurt. "The Significance of the Papyri for Progress in New Testament Research". The Bible in Modern
Scholarship. ed. J.P. Hyatt. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. 1965.
Aland, Kurt. "The Text Of The Church?", Trinity Journal 8 (Fall, 1987): p. 131.
Aland, Kurt. "The Greek New Testament: Its Present and Future Editions". Journal of Biblical Literature,
LXXXVII (June, 1968): p. 184.
Aland, Kurt. "The Present Position of New Testament Textual Criticism". Studia Evangelica. ed. F. L. Crossetºal. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. (1959): pp. 717-731.
Allis, O. T. The New English Bible, The New Testament of 1961, A Comparative Study. n.p. 1963.
Allix, Peter. Some Remarks upon the Ecclesiastical History of the Churches of Piedmont. Oxford: Clarendon
Press. 1821 (1690).
Anderson, Sir Robert The Bible and Modern Criticism. 5th ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton. 1905 (1902).
Ante-Nicene Fathers, The. Roberts and Donaldson, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co. 1867 (reprinted
1978-1980).
Apocrypha, The. London, England: Oxford UP. n.d.
Arndt and Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 1957.
Authorized Holy Bible (King James).
Bengel, John, A. Gnomon of the New Testament. 5 Vols. 6th ed. trans by The Rev. William Fletcher, D.D.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Pub. 1866 (1742).
Bousset, Wilhelm. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur. Vol. 11. 1894.
Bouw, Gerardus D. The Book of Bible Problems. Cleveland, OH: Asso. for Biblical Astronomy Pub. 1997.
Broadbent, Edmund Hamer. The Pilgrim Church. London: Pickering & Inglis. 1931.
Burgon, John William. The Revision Revised. London: John Murray. 1883.
Burgon, John William. The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established. ed. Edward
Miller. London: George Bell and Sons. 1896.
Burgon, John William. The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels. Arranged,
completed and edited by Edward Miller. London: George Bell and Sons. 1896.
Burgon, John William. The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark. Oxford and London: James
Parker and Co. 1871.
Burgon, John William. The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark. Introduction by Edward
Freer Hills. Ann Arbor, MI: The Sovereign Grace Book Club. 1959.
Burgon, John William. The London Quarterly Review. (October): 1881.
Burkitt, F.C. The Old Latin and the Itala. Cambridge: n.p. 1896.
Clark, Kenneth W. "The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the Greek New
Testament". Journal of Biblical Literature, 85:1. March, 1966.
Clark, Kenneth W. "Today's Problems with the Critical Text of the New Testament". Transitions in Biblical
Scholarship. ed. J.C.R. Rylaarsdam. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 1968.

263

Bibliography
Colwell, Ernest Cadman. "Genealogical Method: Its Achievements and its Limitations". Journal of Biblical
Literature. LXVI, (1947): pp. 109-133.
Colwell, Ernest Cadman. "External Evidence and New Testament Criticism". Studies in the History and Text of
the New Testament. eds. B.L. Daniels & M.J. Suggs. Salt Lake City, UT: Uni. of Utah Press. 1967.
Colwell, Ernest Cadman. "Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program". Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism
of the New Testament. ed. E. C. Colwell. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill Pub. 1969.
Colwell, Ernest Cadman. "Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text". The Bible inModern Scholarship. ed. J. P. Hyatt. New York: Abingdon Press. 1965.
Colwell, Ernest Cadman. What is the Best New Testament? Chicago: Chicago UP. 1952.
Colwell, Ernest Cadman. "The Origin of Texttypes of New Testament Manuscripts". Early Christian Origins.
ed. Allen Wikgren. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. 1961.
Colwell, Ernest Cadman. "The Complex Character of the Late Byzantine Text of the Gospels". Journal of
Biblical Literature, LIV (1935): pp. 212-213.
Colwell, Ernest Cadman. "The Greek New Testament with a Limited Critical Apparatus: its Nature and Uses".
Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, ed. D. E. Aune. Leiden, Netherlands:
E.ºJ. Brill. 1972.
Comba, Ernesto. History of The Waldenses of Italy. London: n.p. 1889.
Commentary on the Greek New Testament, A Textual. New York: United Bible Societies. 1971. pp. 137-38.
Cook, Frederick. The Revised Version of the First Three Gospels. London: John Murray. 1882.
Coy, George H. The Inside Story of the Anglo-American Revised New Testament. Dallas, OR: ItemizerObserver. 1973.
Custance, Arthur. Two Men Called Adam. Brockville, Ontario: Doorway Publications. 1983.
Cyclopedia of Biblical Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature. McClintock and Strong. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Book House. 1867.
Durant, Will. The Story of Civilization. Caesar and Christ. Vol. 3. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1944.
Elder, Isabel Hill. Celt, Druid, and Culdee. London: Covenant Publishing House. 1947.
Ellicott, Charles John. Submission of Revised Version to Convocation. n.p. 1881.
Ellicott, Charles John. Addresses on the Revised Version of Holy Scripture. NY: E.S. Gorham. 1901.
Epp, Eldon J. "The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism". Journal of Biblical
Literature, XCIII. 1974.
Eusebius, of Caesarea. Ecclesiastical History. Vol. 1. The Loeb Classical Library. trans. by Kirsopp Lake.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1980.
Fee, Gordon D. Papyrus Bodmer II (P66): Its Textual Relationships and Scribal Characteristics. Salt Lake City,UT: University of Utah Press. 1968.
Friesen, Abraham, Erasmus, the Anabaptists, and the Great Commission. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans
Publishing Co. 1998
Froude, James Anthony. Life and Letters of Erasmus. London: Longman's, Green & Co. 1906 (1894).
Fuller, D. O., ed. Which Bible? 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: International Pub. 1970.
Gehman, Henry Snyder (ed.). The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. Phil., PA: The Westminster Press.
1970. p. 981 (Versions).

264

Bibliography
Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. trans. by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. 1979.
Gilly, W.S. Waldensian Researches During a Second Visit to the Vaudois of Piedmont. London, England: n.p.
1831.
Gish, Duane T. Evolution, the Fossils Say No! San Diego, CA: Master Books. 1972.
Goodrick, Edward W. Is My Bible the Inspired Word of God. Portland, OR: Multnomah Press. 1988.
Goulburn, E.M. Life of Dean Burgon. 2 Vols. London: John Murray. 1892.
Grant, Robert M. A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Harper & Row. 1963.
Grant, Robert M. "The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch". Journal of Biblical Literature. LXVI (1947): p. 173.
Green, Jay P. (ed.). Unholy Hands on the Bible. 2 Vols. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund. 1990.
Volume I includes the complete works of John William Burgon, Dean of Chichester.
Gregory, Caspar Rene. Canon and Text of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1907.
Hemphill, Samuel. A History of the Revised Version of the New Testament. London: E. Stock. 1906.
Hills, Edward F. The King James Version Defended. 1st ed. Des Moines, IA: Christian Research Press. 1956.
Hills, Edward F. The King James Version Defended. 4th ed. Des Moines, IA: Christian Research Press. 1984.
Hills, Edward F. Believing Bible Study. 2nd ed. Des Moines, IA: Christian Research Press. 1977.
Hislop, Alexander. The Two Babylons. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Bros. 1916.
Horne, Thomas Hartwell. An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. 9th ed.
London: Spottiswoode and Shaw. 1846.
Hort, A. F. Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort. 2 Vols. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd. 1896.
Hoskier, Herman C. Codex B and its Allies, A Study and an Indictment. 2 Vols. London: Bernard Quaritch,
Ltd. 1914.
Hoskier, Herman C. Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse. 2 Vols. London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd. 1929.
Hoskier, Herman C. "The Authorized Version of 1611". Bibliotheca Sacra 68. (October, 1911): pp. 693-704.
Hoskier, Herman C. The John Rylands Bulletin. (19-1922/23): p. 118.
Interlinear Hebrew/Greek English Bible, The. Jay P. Green, ed. and trans. 4 Vols. Wilmington, DE: AssociatedPub. and Authors. 1976.
Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament, The. George Ricker Berry. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan. 1977.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. James Orr, gen. ed. Vol. III. Chicago: The Howard-Severance Co.
1937.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed. Vol. IV. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
1979.
Jones, Floyd Nolen. The Chronology of the Old Testament: A Return to the Basics. 18th ed., rev. & enlarged.
Green Forest, AR: Master Books. 2009.
Jones, Floyd Nolen. The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis. 6th ed., rev. & enl. The Woodlands, TX: KingsWord
Press. 2000 (1989).
Kenyon, Sir Frederick G. Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans Pub. Co. 1951.

265

Bibliography
Kenyon, Sir Frederick G. Our Bible And The Ancient Manuscripts. 5th ed. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode.
1958.
Kenyon, Sir Frederick G. The Story of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1967.
Kilpatrick, G. D. "Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament".
Regensburg: Verlag Freiderich Pustet. 1963.

Neutestamentliche Aufsatze.

Kittelson, James. Luther The Reformer. Minneapolis, MN: Augsberg Publishing House. n.d.
Klijn, A. F. J. A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text of the Gospels and Acts; part two 1949-1969.
Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill Pub. 1969.
Lake, Kirsopp. Family 13, (The Ferrar Group). Philadelphia, PA: Uni. of Penn. Press. 1941.
Lake, Kirsopp, Blake, R. P., and New, Silva. "The Caesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark". Harvard Theological
Review. XXI (1928): pp. 207-404.
Letis, Theodore P. "Brevard Childs and the Protestant Dogmaticians: A Window to a New Paradigm". Bulletinof the Institute for Reformation Biblical Studies, 2:1. Fort Wayne, IN: 1991: pp. 1-8.
Letis, Theodore P. Edward Freer Hill's Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text. unpub. M.T.S.
Thesis. Emory University. 1987.
Letis, Theodore P., ed. The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate. Grand Rapids, MI:
Institute for Biblical Textual Studies. 1987.
Letis, Theodore P. "The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the Claims of the Anabaptist". Calvinism Today,
Vol. II no. 3. North Yorkshire, England: (July 1992), p. 11.
Letis, Theodore P. "The Protestant Dogmaticians and the Late Princeton School on the Status of the Sacred
Apographa". Edinburgh, Scotland: 1989; a lecture delivered at the Rutherford House citing R.D.
Preuss. The Inspiration of Scripture: A Study of the Theology of the Seventeenth Century Lutheran
Dogmaticians. 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO: 1981; rpt. from 1955 orig. of 1952 Ph.D. dissertation.
Letis, Theodore P. "A Reply to the Remarks of Mark A. McNeil". Edinburgh, Scotland: Sept. 3, 1990.
Linnemann, Eta. Is There A Synoptic Problem? trans. by Robert W. Yarbrough. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House. 1992.
Martin, Robert. Accuracy of Translation and the New International Version: The Primary Criterian in
Evaluating Bible Versions. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust. 1989.
Maynard, Michael. A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ. Comma Publications. 1995.
McClintock and Strong. Cyclopedia of Biblical Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Book House. 1867.
McClure, Alexander W. The Translators Revived; A Biographical Memoir of the Authors of the English Version.
Litchfield, MI: Maranatha Bible Society. 1858.
McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands A Verdict. Vol. I. San Bernadino, CA: Here's Life Pub., Inc. 1990.
Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 3rd ed., enl.
NY: Oxford Uni. Press. 1992 (1964).
Moorman, Jack A. Forever Settled. Collingswood, NJ: Bible For Today Press, #1428. 1985.
Moorman, Jack A. When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text. Collingswood, NJ: Bible For Today
Press, # 1617. 1988.
Moyer, Elgin S. Who Was Who in Church History. Chicago, IL: Moody Press. 1962.
Munro, J. Iverach. The Samaritan Pentateuch and Modern Criticism. London: J. Nisbet & Co., Ltd. 1911.

266

Bibliography
Musurillo, Herbert. The Fathers of the Primitive Church. New York: Mentor-Omega Pub. (Nihil Obstat)
1966.
Neander, Johann August Wilhelm. General History of the Christian Religion and Church. Vol. I. trans. by
JºTorrey. Boston: Crocker and Brewster. 1848.
Newman, Albert Henry. A Manual of Church History. Vol. I. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press. 1902.
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1893 (1983).
Nolan, Frederick. An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament,
London, England: F.C. and J. Rivington Pub. 1815.
Owen, John. "Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scriptures". The Works of John
Owen. Vol. XVI. ed. William H. Goold. Edinburgh, Scotland: Banner of Truth. 1968; reprint of
1850-53 ed.
O Timothy Magazine . "From the NASV to the KJV". D.W. Cloud, (ed.). Vol. 9, Issue 1. Oak Harbor, WA:1992. (pp. 1-14).
Pache, Rene. Inspiration and Authority of Scripture. trans. by Helen Needham. Chicago, IL: Moody Bible
Institute. 1969.
Parvis, Merrill M. "The Goals of New Testament Textual Studies". Studia Evangelica 6 (1973): pp. 397 & 406.
Parvis, Merrill M. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. 4 Vols. New York: Abingdon Press. 1962. Vol.
IV. pp. 594-614 (NT Text).
Parvis, Merrill M. "The Nature and Task of New Testament Textual Criticism". The Journal of Religion, XXXII(1952): p. 173.
Pickering, Wilbur N. The Identity of the New Testament Text. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. 1977.
Pickering, Wilbur N. What Difference Does It Make? Dallas, TX: n.p. 1990.
Post-Nicene Fathers. Vol. VI. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co.
1892 (1983).
Preus, Robert D. The Inspiration of Scripture: A Study of the Theology of the Seventeenth Century Lutheran
Dogmaticians. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd Ltd. 1957 (1955).
Price, Ira M. The Ancestry of our English Bible. 2nd ed., rev. New York: Harper and Bros. 1949.
Radmacher, Earl & Hodges, Zane C. The NIV Reconsidered. Dallas, TX: Redencion Viva Pub. 1990.
Rauch, David. A Legacy of Hatred: Why Christians Must Not Forget the Holocaust. Grand Rapids MI: Baker
Book House. 1990.
Ray, Jasper J. God Wrote Only One Bible. Junction City, OR: Eye Opener Pub. 1980.
Reagan, David F. The King James Version of 1611, The Myth of Early Revisions. Stockbridge, GA: Beebe
Publications. 1986.
Reumann, John. The Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 1965.
Riplinger, G.A. New Age Bible Versions. Munroe Falls, OH: A.V. Publications. 1993.
Robertson, A.T. A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ. New York: Harper & Row. 1922.
Robertson, A.T. An Introduction To The Textual Criticism Of The New Testament. London: Hodder &Stoughton. 1925.
Robinson, Maurice A. and W.G. Pierpont. The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the
Byzantine/Majority Textform. Atlanta, GA: The Original Word Pub. 1991.

267

Bibliography
Ruckman, Peter S. The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence. Pensacola, FL: Pensacola Bible Press.
1970.
Salmon, George. Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. London: John Murray. 1897.
Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vol. II. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1976.
Scrivener, F.H.A. A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. 4th ed. edited by Edward Miller.
2 Vols. London: George Bell and Sons. 1894.
Scrivener, F.H.A. The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern
Representatives. n.p. 1884.
Septuagint. Alfred Rahlfs, ed. 3rd ed. American Bible Society. New York: 1949 (1935).
Septuagint Version of the Old Testament and Apocrypha With an English Translation, The. Charles Lee Brenton,
ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 1978.
Smith, Preserved. Erasmus: A Study of His Life, Ideals and Place in History. New York: Harper & Brothers
Publishers. 1923.
Souter, Alexander. The Text and Canon of the New Testament. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. 1913.
Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn. Essays Chiefly on Questions of Church and State from 1850 to 1870. London: John
Murray. 1884.
Steele, F. R. Translation or Paraphrase St. Louis, MO: Bible Memory Association International. 1960.
Sturz, Harry A. The Byzantine Text-Type And New Testament Textual Criticism. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson
Pub. 1984.
Swete, Henry B. An Introduction to the Old Testament In Greek. rev. by R.R. Ottley, ed. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Pub. 1989; rpt. of 1914 Cambridge UP orig.
Taylor, Douglas. "A Special Look at Appendix C". Bible League Quarterly. Northampton, England: The Bible
League Trust. (Oct.-Dec., 1990): p. 379.
Taylor, Vincent. The Text of the New Testament: A Short Introduction. London, Eng: Macmillian & Co. Ltd.
1961.
Thiede, Carsten Peter, and D'Ancona, Matthew. Eyewitness to Jesus. New York: Doubleday. 1996.
Thomas, Eldred. Bible Versions. Dallas, TX: Research Educational Foundation, Inc. 1978.
Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament with Remarks on Its
Revision upon Critical Principal Together with a Collation of Critical Texts of Griesbach, Scholz,
Lachmann and Tischendorf, with That in Common Use. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons. 1854.
Tyndale, William. Tindale's Triumph, John Rogers' Monument, The New Testament of the Matthew's Bible
1537 A.D. John Wesley Sawyer, ed. Milford, OH: John the Baptist Printing Ministry. 1989.
Vaganay, Leo. An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Rochester, Kent England: The
Stanhope Press Ltd. 1937.
Van Bruggen, Jakob. The Ancient Text of the New Testament. Winnipeg, Canada: Premier Printing Ltd. 1976.
Van Bruggen, Jakob. The Future of the Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. 1978.
Vincent, Marvin R. A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. New York: MacMillian. 1899.
Voobus, Arthur. Early Versions of the New Testament, Manuscript Studies. Stockholm: Estonian TheologicalSociety in Exile. 1954.
Waite, D.A. Defending the King James Bible: A Four-fold Superiority. Collingswood, NJ: Bible For Today
Press. 1992.

268

Bibliography
Wallace, Foy E. A Review of the New Versions. Ft. Worth, TX: Noble Patterson Pub. 1973.
Ward, Norman. Perfected or Perverted. Grand Rapids, MI: Which Bible Society. n.d.
Warfield, Benjamin Breckenridge. The Westminster Assembly And Its Work. New York: Oxford University
Press. 1931.
Warfield, Benjamin Breckenridge. An Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. London: Hodder andStoughton. 1893.
Warfield, Benjamin Breckenridge. Collection of Opinions. Vol. II. n.p. n.d.
Westcott, Arthur. Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott. 2 Vols. London: Macmillian. 1903.
Westcott, B. F. and F. J. A. Hort. Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek. New York: Harper
and Bros. 1882.
Westcott, B. F. and F. J. A. Hort. The New Testament in the Original Greek. Students Edition with Lexicon.
New York: The Macmillan Co. 1920 (1893).
Wilkinson, Benjamin C. Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. Washington, DC: n.p. 1930.
Wisse, Frederik. The Profile Method for Classifying and Evaluating Manuscript Evidence, 44. Ed. by Irving A.
Sparks. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co. 1982.
Wisselink, Willem F. Assimilation as a Criterion for the Establishment of the Text. Kampen, Netherlands: J. H.
Kot Pub. 1989.
Woodrow, Ralph. Babylon Mystery Religion: Ancient and Modern.
Evangelistic Asso., Inc. 1981.

Riverside, CA:

Zuntz, Gunther. The Text of the Epistles. London: Oxford University Press. 1953.

269

Ralph Woodrow

INDEX
Accommodation policy (Semler's),
122, 185
Adam, 23, 32, 33, 57, 96, 116, 166,
191, 222, 244, 245
Agnosticism, 252
Aland, Kurt, 50, 55, 75, 106, 110,
117, 130, 135, 138, 147, 158, 181,
203, 204, 205, 207, 230, 232, 233,
240
Albigenses, 166
Aleph (a), 30, 31, 40, 50, 65, 75, 83,
104-109, 111, 113, 114, 117, 120,
122, 139, 142, 149-154, 157, 159,
161, 162, 165, 166, 171, 196-198,
204, 206, 241-243, 245-249, 254
Alexandrian Text, 27, 83, 96, 113,
122, 123, 125, 137, 138, 139, 141,
142, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152, 164,
169, 182, 203, 204, 206, 260
Alexandrinus A, 83, 108, 153, 154,
163, 167
Alford, H., 205, 237
Allis, Oswald, 78, 190
Allix, Peter, 168, 169, 170
Alma Mater, 99
Almah, 22
Anabaptist, 61, 210
Angelology, 58
Anglican, 49, 55, 58, 61, 66, 67, 137,
140, 188, 208-210
Ankh, 98, 100
Antioch, 17, 122, 126, 131, 145, 152,
234, 239, 254, 258
Anti-Semitic, 61
Aphrodite, 99
Apocrypha, 67, 104, 106, 113-117
Apollo, 102
Apostolic Succession, 208, 210
Archaeologist, 182, 192
Arian (s) (ism), 36, 63, 101-103, 107,
145, 231, 233, 238, 239
Aristotelian, 94, 187
Aristotle, 32
Arius, 36, 102, 103, 239
Armenian Bible (1666), 233
Arminianism, 40
Arndt, 242
Astarte, 77, 100
Asterius, 254
Astoreth, 99
Athenagoras (of Athens), 233
Augustine (missionary to UK), 171
Augustine, St. (of Hippo), 167, 214,
227
Authorized Version (King James), 1,
3, 4, 14, 19, 32, 33, 41, 45, 46,
48-51, 53, 55, 62, 63, 65, 66, 69,
70, 71, 73, 76-79, 83, 84, 87, 91,
115-117, 125-127, 129, 131, 137,
138, 140-143, 145, 146, 153, 154,
157, 158, 164-175, 181-184, 195,

198-200, 206, 208-212, 214, 218,
219, 226-229, 234-236, 238
Azarias, 116
Baal, 99
Bancroft, 67
Baptism, re-Baptism, 35, 39, 61, 94,
95, 101, 106, 170, 208
Barnabas, 258
Barnabas, Epistle to, 106, 107, 114
Baruch, Book of, 104
Baruch, Jeremiah's Amanuensis, 192
Basle, Switzerland, 52-54
Bel and the Dragon, 104
Bengel, J.A., 240
Berry, George Ricker, 65
Beza, 65, 69, 168, 215, 240
Biblicist (definition), 3
Big Bang, 175, 178
Biston betularia, 176
Blake, R.P., 137, 159
Bodmer II Papyri (P-66), 142, 143,
150, 151, 157, 158, 161
Bois, John, 70
Bombasius, Paulus, 84
Bousset, Wilhelm, 139
Bouw, Dr. Gerardus D., 233
Briggs, Charles S., 181, 188
Broadbent, E.H., 103
Brown-Driver-Briggs, 181, 188
Bruce, F.F., 165, 237
Buckminster, J.S., 186
Burgon, John William (Dean ofChichester), 31, 51, 54, 105, 108,
111, 124, 137-143, 148, 154, 155,
157, 159-165, 178, 179, 188, 191,
196-198, 208-211, 213, 214, 218,
227-229, 261
Burkitt, F.C., 164, 165, 167
Byzantine (Syrian) Text, 10, 109,
122, 125, 137, 141-145, 152, 156,
164, 169, 183, 184, 197, 203, 205,
206, 234, 245, 246, 248, 250, 253,257-261
Caesarean Text, 137, 159, 260
Calvin, John, 69, 94, 210
Calvinist, 40, 189, 210
Cambrian, 177
Canon of the Bible, 10, 15, 112-116,
122, 143, 173, 200, 206, 214
Canis, 176
Cassiodorus, 235
Charles V, 64
Chester Beatty Papyri, 142, 143Childs, Brevard, 198, 200, 201
Chrysostom, John, 124, 139, 227, 234
Church, The, 258, 260
Church of England, 49, 55, 58, 61,
66, 67, 137, 140, 188, 208-210
Clark, K.W., 131, 146, 147, 240

270

Clarke, A.C., 125
Clement of Alexandria, 94, 108, 140
Codex D, 161-163, 251
Codex L, 154
Codex W, 149
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 58
Columba (A.D. 521-597), 171
Colwell, E.C., 121, 124, 129, 130,134-136, 142, 144, 145, 147, 155,
158, 161, 165, 181, 217
Comba, Ernesto, 168, 170
Conflation Theory, 122, 123, 125,
138, 139, 245, 246, 257
Constans, 103
Constantine I, 36, 97, 98, 101-103,
105, 106, 108, 120, 148, 170, 172,173, 202, 226, 239, 260, 262
Constantius II, 103
Consubstantiation, 103
Cook, Frederick, 153
Coptic Version, 31
Council of Byzantium, 239
Council of Carthage, 234
Council of Laodicea, 115
Council of Nicea, 254
Council of Trent, 80, 105, 114
Coverdale, Miles, 68
Crispus, 101
Crusades, 101
Cupid, 99
Custance, Arthur, 191
Cybele, 99
Cyprian, 39, 234
Cyril, 227
Dabney, Robert, 237
Dallas Theological Seminary, 117,
129, 134
Damasus I (Pope), 105, 149, 167
Daniel the Prophet, 44, 101
Dannhauer, J.C., 193
Darwin, Charles, 58
DDT, 175
Dead Sea Scrolls, 6, 11, 138
Deoius, 99
Deriagine, Dimitry V., 125, 281
Devaki, 99
Dialectic, Hegel's, 3
Diana (Artemis), 77
Diatessaron, The, 165, 166, 246
Dioadati Bible, 168
Diocletian, Gaius A., 170, 253
Dionysius, Bishop, 134
DNA, 176
Docetists, 126
Doctrine of Inerrancy, 184, 189, 255
Donatist Movement, 253
Douay Version, 110, 190
Druids, 99, 172
Durant, Will, 102
Dynamic Equivalence, 127-129

Easter, 76, 77, 100, 242
Ebionites, 92, 93, 105, 233
Ecclesiasticus, Book of, 104
Eclectic (ism), 127, 130, 147, 149,
154, 157, 179, 204, 242, 245, 246,
249, 250, 253, 255, 257
Eden, Garden of, 57, 81
Egypt, 48, 63, 92, 93, 98, 99, 102,
114, 157, 158, 163, 169, 196, 207,
215, 244-246, 248, 251, 257
Elder, Isabel Hill, 172, 239
Elizabeth, Queen, 66
Ellerton, Rev. John, 57-59
Ellicott, Bishop C.J., 153, 197, 209
Elzevir Brothers, 65, 154
Enlightenment, The, 187-190, 200
Epp, Eldon J., 130, 146, 147, 149
Erasmus, Desiderius, 49, 52-54,
60-66, 69, 78, 79, 82-84, 105-107,
115, 138, 143, 154, 159, 197, 199,
200, 202, 210, 213, 215, 234, 240
Eros, 99
Esdras, The Books of, 104, 113
Essenes, 11
Esther, The Rest of the Book of, 104
Etruscans, 100
Eugenius, 234
Eusebius (of Caesarea), 36, 92, 101,
103, 105, 106, 108, 120, 134, 148,
170, 171, 173, 215, 233, 239
Evergreen Tree, 100
Fall of Man (Adam), 56, 96
Fathers, The Early Church, 31, 52,
93, 94, 108, 124, 130, 134, 137,
139-141, 163, 167, 195-197, 206,
207, 210, 226-228, 232-234, 261
Fee, Gordon D., 150
Fifth Column, Origen's, 93, 97,
104-106, 108, 113, 114, 153
Finney, Charles G., 213
Formal Equivalence, 127-129
Freemasonry, 100
Friesen, Abraham, 61
Froude, J.A., 52, 61, 199
Fulgentius, 235
Fuller, David O., 52, 105, 119, 120,
133, 148, 167, 191, 196-198, 216
Fundamentalist, 3, 184, 193, 195
Gaius, 148
Gallo, Italo, 144
Gehman, Henry Snyder, 209
Gemara, 82
Geneva Bible, 49, 67-69, 76, 212
Georgian Bible, 233
Gesenius, 181
Ghostly Guild, 59
Gildas, 172
Gilly, W.S., 169, 170
Gingrich, 242
Gish Duane T., 176
Gnostic (s) (ism), 27, 28, 48, 58, 96,
120, 126, 134, 157, 165, 166, 226,
233, 246, 251
Goodrick, Edward W., 7
Gothic Type Style, 71

Grant, Robert M., 131
Graphé, 7Great Awakening, The, 213
Great Bible, The (A.D. 1539), 49, 67,
68, 76
Greek Vulgate (Rec'd Text-N.T.), 53,
63, 171, 173, 199, 233-235, 239,
240
Green, Jay P., Sr., 52, 92, 128, 191
Gregory of Nazianzus, 235
Gregory I (Pope), 168, 181
Griesbach, Johann Jakob, 97, 122,
145, 169, 174, 186
Gutenburg, Johann, 70
Harnack, 238
Harvard, 33, 137, 138, 186, 207, 210
Helveticus Concensus, 81
Helvidius, 108, 167
Hemphill, Samuel, 209
Heraclean, 140
Herod (Agrippa), 76
Herod (Antipas), 242
Herod The Great, 246
Hexapla (see Fifth Column), 92, 97,
104-106, 108, 117, 167, 170
High-Church, 208, 210
Hills, Edward F., 32, 33, 53, 57, 60,
61, 63, 78, 79, 83, 115, 117,
125-127, 131, 137, 138, 140-143,
145, 146, 148, 153, 154, 157, 158,
164-167, 173-175, 178, 181-183,
186, 189, 191, 195, 198, 206, 208,
210-214, 216, 219, 226-229,
234-236, 238-240
Hippolytus, 31
Hislop, Alexander, 98-100, 102
Hitler, Adolph, 96, 104
Hodge, Charles, 186, 191
Hodges, Zane, 128
Hort, F.J.A, 122
Hort, F.J.A., 50, 54-61, 91, 92, 97,
105, 106, 109, 110, 117, 119-127,
130, 131, 133-135, 137-141,
143-149, 151-154, 157, 160,
162-167, 171, 174, 178, 186-188,
190, 191, 195-197, 199, 203, 206,
209, 213-215, 234, 251, 257, 259
Horus, 99
Hoskier, Herman C., 54, 76, 153, 161,
162, 178, 179, 191, 195, 196, 205,
206, 208, 213-215
Hunnerich, King, 234
Iakovos, Archbishop Geron, 215
Indrani, 99
Inerrancy, Doctrine of, 184, 189, 255
Inquisition, The, 104
Intrinsic Probability, 124, 129, 232
Iona, Island of, 171
Irenaeus, 31, 39, 93, 140, 165
Ishtar, 77, 100
Isis, 99
Itala, (orig. "Old Latin" or Italic
Bible, c.157 A.D.), 166-168
Italic Bible (see Itala), 168, 169,
172

271

James VI, (or I ) King, 66, 67, 69, 75,
77, 79, 85, 89
Jamnia, 112
Jehoiakim, King, 192
Jerome, 83, 105, 106, 108, 110, 114,
149, 164, 166-168, 172, 173, 199,
202, 214, 215, 229, 232, 234, 259
Johannie Comma, 236
Jones, Dr. Floyd Nolen, 3, 12, 93,
113, 149
Josephus, Flavius, 113, 114
Judith, The Book of, 104
Jupiter, 93, 99
Kennicott, Bishop Benjamin, 11
Kenyon, Sir Frederick, 69, 109, 144,
145, 165, 168, 179, 181
Kilpatrick, G.D., 155, 156
King James Translators (A.D. 1611),
43, 44, 46, 48, 67-70, 76, 77, 82,
83, 85, 87, 88, 95, 98, 100, 117,
119, 128, 129, 151, 152, 168, 230
Kittel, 181
Klijn, A.F.J., 136, 137, 150
Koine, 10, 92, 117, 129, 258
Krishna, 99
Kronos, 98
Lachmann, Karl, 174
Lactantius, 101
Lagrange, 248
Lake, Kirsopp, 124, 131, 137, 138,
144, 145, 150, 159
Latin Vulgate, 53, 52, 83, 105, 106,108, 110, 167, 173, 199, 202, 213,
215, 231, 232, 234, 238, 239
Lectionaries, 31, 51, 163, 203, 206,
230, 233
Lee, Edward, 52Leger, J, 170
Leipzig, 186-188, 190
Lepidopterous Insects, 176
Letis, Dr. Theodore P., 61, 79-81, 85,
88, 136, 142, 148, 160, 169, 179,
183, 186, 189, 191, 198, 200-202,
208, 210, 211, 216, 218
Liddel-Scott, 181
Lightfoot, Dr. Joseph B., 57
Logic of Faith, The, 148, 181, 182,
211, 212, 216
Logsdon, Dr. Frank, 62
London Quarterly Review, The, 51
London Times, The, 207
Lucian, 126, 144-146, 149, 151, 164,
239, 254, 257
Lucianic Recension, 146, 151, 164,
257
Luther, Martin, 61, 63, 64, 79, 168,
202, 210, 212
LXX (same as Septuagint), 12, 44,
93, 113, 145, 212, 245
Maccabees, 60, 104, 116
Machen, J. Gresham, 190
Magdalen Papyrus, 207
Majority Text, x, 31, 111, 205, 245,
257, 258

Majuscules (MSS/Uncials), 50
Marcion the Gnostic, 120, 126, 134,
259
Mariolatry, 56
Mars, 102
Martial, the Roman Poet from Spain,
144
Martyr, Justin, 31, 140, 165
Marx, Karl, 96
Mary, Jesus' mother, 23, 24, 30, 32,
37, 41, 56, 58, 93, 94, 96, 114,
145
Masoretes, 11Masoretic Text, 6, 11, 12, 138, 214,
245
Maurice, Frederick, 58, 229, 230,
258, 261
Maxentius (Emperor), 102
Maynard, Michael, 234
McClure, Alexander, 67-70, 80, 85
McDowell, Josh, 112
McKindrick, Dr. Scot, 197
McNeil, Mark A., 183, 215
Merk, Augustin, 205
Methodism, 57
Metzger, Bruce, 75, 127, 139, 145,
181, 226, 232, 237, 241-244,
246-251
Middleton, Bishop, 237
Millenary Petition, 66
Miller Edward, 84, 124, 140, 141,
148, 155, 157, 178, 191, 208
Milvian Bridge, Battle of, 98, 102
Minuscules (mss/cursives), 50, 53,
54, 203-205
Mishna, 82
Mithras, 100
Monophysites, 165
Moody, Dwight L., 11, 93, 213
Moorman, J.A., 54, 91, 115, 143, 169,
191, 202-206, 231-234, 236, 237,
240
Moth, Peppered, 175, 176
Mount Athos, 215
Moyer, Elgin S., 93
Mussolini, Benito, 96
Musurillo, Herbert, 94
Mystery Religion (s), 98-101
Neander, Johann A.W., 172
Neologian, 140, 141
Neo-Platonism, 94
Nestle, Eberhard, 107, 110, 205
Nestle-Aland 26th Edition, 36, 75,
106, 107, 110, 117, 130, 204, 205,
232, 251, 255
Nestorians, 165, 233
Neutral approach (Text), 97, 122,
143, 174, 182, 187, 190, 195
New International Version, 1, 21, 22,
24-29, 32-36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 45,
46, 128, 231, 242, 243, 250
New, Silva, 137, 159
Newman, Albert Henry, 94
Newman, J.H. (Cardinal), 58
Newtonian theorem, 55
Nicolas of Antioch, 17

Nikon, 227
Nimrod, 98-102
Nolan, Dr. Frederick, 53, 63, 115,
148, 154, 169, 170, 173, 191, 208,
233-235, 239, 240
Non-Church manuscripts, 258-260
Notre Dame, 99
Origen, Adamantius, 27, 28, 30, 32,
83, 92-97, 104-108, 113, 114,
116, 120, 126, 140, 141, 149, 153,
155, 156, 164, 167, 169, 170, 172,173, 214, 215, 226, 259
Origenists (ians), 63, 167
Orion, 98
Osiris, 99
Ottoman Turks, 200, 215
Our Lady, 99
Owen, John, 81
P-66, (Bodmer II Papyri), 142, 143,
150, 151, 157, 158, 161
Pache, Rene, 11, 112
Pamphilus, 104, 171
Pantaenus, 93
Papias, 31
Papoutsis, Peter, 215
Papyri, Bodmer II (P-66), 142, 143,
150, 151, 157, 158, 161
Papyri, Chester Beatty, 142, 143
Parablepsis, 254
Parthenos, 23, 93
Partick, St., 172
Parvis, Merrill M., 131, 135, 136,
207, 240
Pascha, 76, 77
Passover, 1, 76, 77, 242
Patripassians, 238
Paul, the Apostle, 7, 13, 14, 46, 66,
84, 92, 97, 106, 120, 134, 143,
152, 166, 208, 258
Pentecost, Feast of, 227, 228
Peppered Moth, 175, 176
Pergamos, 100
Pericope de Adultera, 39, 219-230
Peshitta, 164, 165
Peter, the Apostle, 5, 14, 25, 45, 52,
76, 77, 79, 97, 155, 168, 191, 208,
249
Philadelphia Confession, 81, 216
Pickering, Dr. Wilbur N., 31, 103,
111, 120, 122, 124, 125, 127, 130,134-136, 138-141, 143, 145, 146,
148-152, 155, 157-159, 161-163,
165, 178, 191, 241, 250, 258
Picts, 171
Pierpont, William G., 258
Pieta, 56
Plato, 32, 94
Plenary Inspiration, 60, 184,
241
Plummer, 237
Poe Valley, 100
Polycarp, 148
Pontifix Maximus, 101
Pre-Cambrian, 177
Preus, Robert D., 193, 214272

Price, Ira M., 104, 166
Priscillian, 234
Providential Preservation, 54, 61, 63,
65, 66, 74, 80, 82, 83, 110, 115,
126, 181, 183, 187, 190, 192, 193,
210-212, 215, 216, 258, 260
Ptolemy II, Philadelphus, 12
Puritans, 66, 67
Quenstedt, J.A., 214
Rabbula, Bishop, 164, 165
Radmacher, E., 128
Rainolds (same as Renyolds), 66
Raphael, 115
Rauch, David, 61
Reagan, David F., 70, 74
Received Text (TR), 4, 33, 42, 50-54,
61, 63, 65, 66, 75, 77, 81, 83, 84,
91, 92, 109, 110, 117, 120, 122,
124, 125, 127, 135, 139-142, 144,
145, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 157,
161-164, 168, 169, 171, 173, 181,
183, 184, 192, 195-197, 199, 203,
205-208, 210-216, 238, 240, 241,
245, 255-261
Red Shift, 178
Reformation (ers), 60, 64, 80, 83-85,
104, 106, 148, 168, 183, 186,
189-191, 198, 199, 201, 202, 206,
210, 213, 216, 240
Reincarnation, 95, 99
Renyolds, John (see Rainolds), 66, 67
Reuchlin, John, 53
Reumann, John H.P., 93
Revision Committee (1881), 55, 70,
91, 106, 153, 197, 209
Rheims-Douay Version, 110, 190
Rich Young Ruler, The, 27, 28
Riplinger, Gail A., vii
Robertson, A.T., 65, 105, 191
Robinson, Maurice A., 229, 230,258-261
Ruckman, Dr. Peter S., 5, 57, 167
Russian Scribe's Testimony, 125, 281
Sabellian (ism), 231, 238, 239
Sabellius, 238
Saccas, Ammonius, 94
Sacerdotalist, 57
Salmon, George, 195
Schaff, Philip, 108, 165, 166, 186,
188
Scholasticism, 187
Scrivener, F.H.A., 54, 70, 72, 74, 84,
119, 148, 155, 160, 168, 178, 208,
213, 233, 234
Semiramis, 98-100
Semler, J.S., 122, 174, 185
Septuagint (same as LXX), 12, 44,
93, 113, 145, 212, 245
Sepulveda, Juan, 84
Shepherd of Hermas, 107, 114, 116
Shinar, 100
Shingmoo, 99
Sinaiticus Aleph (a), 30, 31, 40, 50,
65, 75, 83, 104-109, 111, 113,(Sinaiticus Aleph cont.)114, 117,
120, 122, 139, 142, 149-154, 157,
159, 161, 162, 165, 166, 171,
196-198, 204, 206, 241-243,
245-249, 254
Smith, Preserved, 53
Smith, Vance, 91, 209
Socrates, 32
Soden Hermann von, 131, 144, 145,
152, 160, 205, 245
Sola Scriptura, 80
Souter, Alexander, 205
Southern Baptist, 191
Spurgeon, Charles Haddon, 213
Stanley, Dean Authur P., 209
Steady State Theory, 175
Steele, Francis R., 85-88
Stephens (Stephanus 1550), 65, 69,
154, 210, 215, 240
Sturz, Harry A., 142, 152, 156, 160,
183, 233, 234
Summum Bonum, 28, 32
Sunday, Billy, 213
Synoptic Problem, 191
Syrian Church, 164, 165, 171,260
Syrian Text (Byzantine), 10, 109,
122, 125, 137, 141-145, 152, 156,
164, 169, 183, 184, 197, 203, 205,
206, 234, 245, 246, 248, 250, 253,257-261
Talmud, 82
Tammuz, Adonis, 77, 99, 100,
101
Tatian of Assyria, 156, 165, 166
Taylor, Douglas, 216
Tepl manuscript, 168
Tertullian, 31, 140, 166, 167, 200,
234
Textual Criticism: Higher and Lower
Definitions, 51
Textus Receptus (TR), 4, 33, 42,
50-54, 61, 63, 65, 66, 75, 77, 81,
83, 84, 91, 92, 109, 110, 117, 120,
122, 124, 125, 127, 135, 139-142,
144, 145, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154,
157, 161-164, 168, 169, 171, 173,
181, 183, 184, 192, 195-197, 199,
203, 205-208, 210-216, 238, 240,
241, 245, 255-261
Thayer, 181
Theodoret, 166
Theodosius I (the Elder), Emperor,
239

Theophilus (Bishop of Antioch), 131,
233
Thiede, Dr. Carston Peter, 144, 207,
208
Thirlwall, Bishop, 209
Thischendorf, C. von, 31, 105, 141,
198, 205, 226
Thomas, Eldred, 67, 183
Titus of Rome, 38, 107, 116
Tobit, 104, 115, 116
Torrey, R.A., 213
TR (Textus Receptus), 4, 33, 42,
50-54, 61, 63, 65, 66, 75, 77, 81,
83, 84, 91, 92, 109, 110, 117, 120,
122, 124, 125, 127, 135, 139-142,
144, 145, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154,
157, 161-164, 168, 169, 171, 173,
181, 183, 184, 192, 195-197, 199,
203, 205-208, 210-216, 238, 240,
241, 245, 255-261
Traditional Text (T.T.), 55, 83, 105,
108, 124, 126, 137, 138, 140, 141,
143, 144, 146, 154, 155, 157,
159-164, 167, 173, 184, 189,
196-198, 208, 210, 211, 216, 227,
229
Transcriptional Probability, 127, 134,
160, 232, 244, 249
Transmigration of the Soul, 95
Tregelles, Samuel P., 84
Trinitarian Controversy, 234
Trinity, 70, 96, 114, 207, 231-233,
236
Turks, Ottoman, 200, 215
Tyndale, William, 64, 68, 69, 76, 79,
104, 110, 212
Ulfilas, 173
Unitarian, 58, 91, 209
United Bible Society (UBS), 106,
110, 117, 130, 157, 232, 241-251,
255
Valentinus, 157
Valla, Lorenzo, 202
Van Bruggen, Jakob, 79, 191
Van Til, Cornelius, 190
Vandals, 234
Vatican I Decree, 202
Vaticanus B, 30, 31, 40, 50, 54, 65,
75, 83, 84, 91, 92, 104-109, 111,
113-115, 117, 120, 122, 142, 143,
153, 157, 159, 161-163, 165, 166,
171, 179, 195-197, 206, 208, 214,245, 246, 248

273

Vaudois (see Waldneses), 167, 169,
170
Venus, 99
Verbal Adjective, 236
Verbal Equivalence, 129
Verbal Inspiration, 17, 55, 60, 133,
184, 186-188, 207, 218, 241
Vigilus, 235
Vincent, Marvin R., 84, 237
Vine, 237
Virgo-Paritura, 99
Vogels, Heinrich J., 156, 205
Voobus, Arthur, 164
Waite, Rev. Dr. D.A., 50, 51, 91, 110,
117, 128, 129, 148, 191, 208
Waldenses/Waldensian, 167-171, 173
Waldo, Peter, 168
Wallace, Foy E., 92, 93
Ward, Samuel, 70, 128
Warfield, Benjamin B., 127, 186-192
Wesley, John, 88, 94, 213
Westcott, B.F., 50, 54-61, 91, 92, 97,
106, 109, 110, 117, 119-127, 130,131, 133, 135, 137-140, 143-149,
152-154, 157, 162-164, 167, 171,174, 178, 186-188, 190, 191,
195-197, 199, 203, 206, 209,
213-215, 234, 259
Western Text, 109, 114, 115, 122,
123, 125, 136-142, 144, 146, 148,
150, 152, 183, 199, 200, 202, 239,
251, 260
Westminster Confession, 81, 186,
188, 190, 210
Weymouth, 160
Whitefield, George, 213
Wilberforce, Bishop Samuel, 119
Wilkinson, Benjamin C., 83, 167-173,
199, 200
Williams, Rev. Rowland, 56
Wilson, Robert Dick, 190
Wisdom of Solomon, 104Wisse, Frederik, 203-206
Woman Taken in Adultery, 39,219-230
Woodrow, Ralph, 101
Wuest, Kenneth S., 237
Ye, 79Yule Log, 100
Zuntz, Gunther, 135, 142, 155, 158,
195

The Testimony of a 20th Century Russian Scribe
Before the political reforms in Russia started, the Greek text of the New
Testament was unavailable even for a student of the Philological Faculty of the
University. It was impossible to borrow the text from the University library or to
make a photocopy of the same as it was prohibited. The only possibility to get
the text was to rewrite it from a copy in the library's reading-room. And it was avery painstaking task. When later examining my own scribal habits, I noticed
that my tendency as a scribe was to shorten the text, especially at the parallel
passages of the Synoptic Gospels.
The text of the Russian Bible was also unavailable. So the people madehandwritten and typewritten copies of the same. Very often they copied the text
not from a printed edition, but from another typewritten or handwritten copy.
People also corrected these copies in accordance with what they memorized (and
often wrongly) to be read from the Scripture in the Church. Very often theycreated a more difficult reading instead of a more easier one. The type of errors
incorporated into the text of the Scripture often was of the same kind which canbe found in the early papyri.
Works of dissident (underground) poets were never published in Russia
during the period of communist dictatorship. So these circulated in handwrittenor typewritten form. But the fans of the poets (by whom these poets were nearly
deified) corrupted their works. It was very difficult to prove the fact of thecorruption at that time as printed editions containing the works under question
were unavailable.
Using the above mentioned facts and the data of transmission of the old
Church Slavonic text of the New Testament (in 1100-1600 AD) it is very easy todemonstrate, for example, that a "harder reading" is usually not the original one.

Dimitry V. Deriagine
RussiaSt. Petersburg 196105
Moskovsky Ave
house 172, Block 7, flat 327(included with a personal letter to Dr. Floyd N. Jones, 14 January, 1997)

274

275
Observe thatthe 5thcolumn,prepared byOrigen, isdenoted as
LXX.

Taken fromThe New
SchaffHerzog
Encyclopediaof Religious
Knowledge
Vol. VIII,
p. 270(Origen).

The Hexapla

Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536)
the famous Dutch scholar
restored the Greek Received Text.

276

William Tyndale, godly young English priest(AD 1494-1536) left Oxford to study Greek at
Cambridge under the influence of Erasmus.
Relying about 99% on the 1522 third editionof Erasmus' Greek text, in 1526 AD
Tyndale translated and produced the firstcomplete printed New Testament in
the English tongue.

277

Brooke Foss Westcott(1825-1901),
Anglican Bishop of Durham (1890).
Elected regius professor of Divinity at Cambridge in 1870.

278

A younger Brooke Foss Westcott(1825-1901)
Westcott worked in secret almost continuouslywith Hort editing the Greek text of the
New Testament from 1852 to 1871.
Serving on the revision committee of thesouthern convocation of the Anglican Church,
for eleven years they controlled andfoisted their corrupt text on the group until
the work was completed in 1881.
The modern versions are based on thisradical Greek text.

279

Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892). An ordained Anglican
priest, he was a professor at Cambridge from 1872 till his
death. Hort was a former pupil of Westcott's.

280

John William Burgon (1813-1888)
Anglican vicar of St. Mary's in 1863 and Dean of Chichester
at Oxford University in 1876.
Dean Burgon exposed and, with Scrivener, opposed thecorrupted Greek New Testament of Westcott and Hort.

281

James VI King of Scotland succeeded his cousin Elizabeth as James I
King of England (1603-1625), thus uniting the two thrones. A
thousand ministers presented him a petition requesting reforms to rid
the English church of the remnants of Catholicism. A gifted
theologian, James had become displeased with the Geneva Bible due
to its numerous marginal Calvinistic notes, many of which clashedwith his belief in Divine Right of Kings. Thus, James conceded toallow a new translation of the Bible that would be free of all notes.

282Origen was the third head master of a school in Alexandria, Egypt.
He compiled a six columned Old Testament called the Hexapla (c.245
AD). The 5th column is Origen's revision known as the "LXX" or"Septuagint." Whereas he translated the Old, he edited the New.
Origen traveled extensively and everywhere he found a Greek New
Testament, it was altered by his 14 copyist to fit his doctrine.

283

Dr. Edward Freer Hills (1912-1981).
A distinguished Latin major and Phi Beta Kappa graduate from Yale,
Dr. Hills, completed his Th.D. program in New Testament text
criticism at Harvard. A conservative Presbyterian Christian scholar,
he wrote The King James Version Defended and Believing Bible Studyin an attempt to warn the Church by demonstration and exposition of
the dangers in New Testament textual criticism.

284For 1,200 years the Roman Church continued using Jerome's corrupt
Latin Vulgate. The old English translations were all made from the
Textus Receptus during the horrible threat of the Inquisition.

285

Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536)
of Rotterdam
the Greek Received Text
286