Page 79 - Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible Christianity. Based on the King James Bible

BIBLE VERSIONS

Ephesians 3:9--“by Jesus Christ” omitted in Aleph, B judicious and trustworthy” (Robert Dabney,
1 Timothy 3:16 -- “God” is omitted and replaced Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, pp. 354, 55).
with “who” in the Sinaiticus (the Vaticanus does Westcott and Hort despised the Greek Received Text.
not contain the epistle to Timothy) Following is what F.J.A. Hort wrote in 1851, when he
2. WE HOLD TO THE KING JAMES BIBLE BECAUSE was only 23 years old and before he had developed his
WE REJECT MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM. textual theories or done any serious research in this
Consider some facts about modern textual criticism: field: “I had no idea till the last few weeks of the
Textual criticism is the application of modern linguistic importance of texts, having read so little Greek
theories to the recovery of ancient documents. The Testament, and dragged on with THE VILLAINOUS
theories of modern textual criticism were initially TEXTUS RECEPTUS...Think of THAT VILE TEXTUS
developed over a period of roughly 100 years from the RECEPTUS leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing
late 1700s to the late 1800s. During that introductory there are such early ones” (Life and Letters of Fenton
period its popularity was limited to textual scholars, for John Anthony Hort, vol. 1, p. 211). Textual critic Ernest
the most part, while it was resisted by Bible believers in Colwell observed that Hort’s goal was to dethrone the
general. After the publication of the Westcott-Hort Received Text (Colwell, Scribal Habits in Early Papyri, The
Greek New Testament in 1881, the theories of modern Bible in Modern Scholarship, Abingdon, 1965, p. 370).
textual criticism quickly gained dominancy in the field Wilbur Pickering observes: “It appears that Hort did not
of biblical scholarship. arrive at his theory through unprejudiced intercourse
Modern textual criticism was devised largely by men with the facts. Rather, he deliberately set out to
construct a theory that would vindicate his preconceived
who treated the Bible as another book and who either animosity for the Received Text” (Identity of the New
did not believe in the doctrine of Bible preservation or Testament Text, ch. 3). Note, too, that Hort was deceived
refused to predicate their textual theories on this into thinking that the Received Text leans “entirely on
doctrine. Consider two examples. Karl Lachmann, the late manuscripts.”
first textual critic to entirely reject the Received Text,
was a “classical scholar” who approached the Bible in Bruce Metzger calls the TR “CORRUPT” and
the same way that he approached ordinary classical C h r i s t i a n p e o p l e ’ s l o v e f o r i t
books. Bruce Metzger, who says Lachmann is one of the “SUPERSTITIOUS” (Metzger, The Text of the New
most important names in the history of modern textual Testament, 1968, p. 106). He further calls it “DEBASED”
criticism, admits that Lachmann “ventured to apply to and “DISFIGURED” (Metzger, A Textual Commentary on
the New Testament the criteria that he had used in the Greek New Testament, 1975, xxi, xxiii).
editing texts of the classics” (Metzger, A Textual Barbara Aland called the TR “FLAWED, preserving
Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1975, p. xxiii). the text of the New Testament in a form FULL OF
Westcott and Hort, the editors of the influential Greek ERRORS” (Barbara Aland, “A Century of New Testament
New Testament of 1881, operated under the following Te x t u a l C r i t i c i s m 1 8 9 8 - 1 9 9 8 , ” h t t p : / /
principle: “In matters of textual criticism the Bible is to w w w . b i b l e r e s o u r c e c e n t e r . o r g /
be treated like any other ancient book. No special vsItemDisplay.dsp&objectID=BF4714BC-53F6-48EB-94F
considerations are to be made concerning its claims of EA6BF73FD88A5&method=display).
inspiration and preservation” (Westcott and Hort, The This bias, based upon a mythical “recension,” has
New Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction and tainted most of the serious research into ancient texts
Appendix, 1881). and translations since the beginning of the 20th century.
Modern textual criticism claims that the Traditional Modern textual critics are so biased against the Received
Greek Text, the Text underlying the Reformation Bibles, is Text as to be undependable as witnesses to the textual
corrupt and has a special distaste for it. This was evidence. After examining the way influential textual
recognized in the 19th century by Presbyterian scholar critics misuse the manuscript evidence, Wilbur Pickering
Robert Dabney: observed, “It seems clear that the ‘Byzantine’ text cannot
“Their common traits may be said to be AN ALMOST win in a court presided over by a judge of Kenyon’s
CONTEMPTUOUS DISMISSAL OF THE RECEIVED bent” and “there is reason to ask whether editors with
TEXT, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost an anti-Byzantine bias can be trusted to report the
of notice; the rejection of the great mass of the codices evidence in an impartial manner” (Pickering, Identity of
of the common text as recent and devoid of nearly all the New Testament Text, ch. 4).
authority; and the settlement of the text by the The Greek text produced by modern textual criticism is
testimony of a very few MSS. for which they claim a much shorter than the Received Text New Testament.
superior antiquity, with the support of a few fathers
and versions, whom they are pleased to regard as It is shorter by 2,886 words. This is equivalent to
removing the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter from the

Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity 79