AND

THE KING JAMES BIBLE AND THE RECEIVED TEXT

Missionary David C. Bennett, D. Min.

September 28, 2004

Spiritually I grew up feeding on the King James Bible and Regular Baptist Press (RBP) Sunday school material. As a young boy the church in which I was saved used RPB material and when I went into the ministry the first church I patored used RBP materials. When we came to Australia in 1979 with the Association of Baptists for World Evangelism (then an approved agency of the General Association of Regular Baptists, GARBC) RBP was kind enough to supply us and other GARBC approved missionaries with free Sunday school material. The RBP materials were well presented and a great help in our teaching ministry.

In the mid 1980’s I was studying for a Masters degree through Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary. By the providence and good hand of the Lord I transferred from Grand Rapids to Bethany Theological Seminary. One of the courses at Bethany required reading books on the Textual issue of the New Testament. The books chosen by the professor for the course were written by Dr. David Otis Fuller and Dean of Chichester John Burgon. Through reading these books my spiritual eyes were opened to the real Bible Textual issue. Therefore I became more conscious of the commentaries I used and the teaching materials we were using in our ministry.

In the very early 1990’s the Executive Editor of Regular Baptist Press, Vernon Miller, now retired, visited Sydney, Australia. Mr. Miller had come to conduct a Sunday school conference for the independent Baptist churches in the surrounding Sydney area. At one of the sessions Mr. Miller made the comment that Regular Baptist Press only used the King James Bible. Most of the pastors attending that conference also used only the King James Bible so that assurance from Mr. Miller sounded good to their ears. However, I was at that time teaching the adult Regular Baptist Sunday school material CHOOSING TO BE SPIRITUAL by Dave and Pat Warren. In the Instructor’s manual page 7 of CHOOSING TO BE SPIRITUAL the Warren’s had sought to clarify something in the King James Bible saying that "In 1 Corinthians 3:1 the Greek word for ‘carnal’ is sarkinos." Then they went on to say that "In 3:3 the term for ‘carnal’ is sarkikos." This statement prompted me to do a little research concerning the Greek word found in these two verses. This research uncovered the fact that the Warren’s consulted the Critical Greek Text, by Westcott and Hort, rather than the Greek text underlying the King James Bible, the Received Greek Text. The Critical Text did use different words than the Received Greek Text and therefore the difference. However, my question then and still is "Why did the Warren’s use the Critical Text rather than the Received Text? Then I wondered why, James Dyet, the then editor of youth and adult Sunday school material at RBP did not at least make a note somewhere in the manual informing the teacher that the Critical Greek Text was used rather than the Received Greek Text? Was this a matter of dishonesty and deception by Regular Baptist Press?

Back to the Sunday school conference in Sydney. When Mr. Miller made it a point to say Regular Baptist Press only used the King James Bible I decided to ask him a question when he and I were alone. The question I was going to put to him was; why did the Warren’s use the Critical Greek Text which differs from the Received Greek Text underlying the King James Bible in not only the passage under consideration by the Warrens but in a whole host of other Biblical passages? Simply put, it was their use of the Critical Greek Text that brought about the explanation of this English word, carnal, found in the 1 Corinthians 3 passage. When I was able to speak to Mr. Miller alone and brought this matter to his attention his reply was that I was being too picky and made it clear he was not discussing it any further.

So, my impression from Mr. Miller was that while Regular Baptist Press only used the King James Bible it knowingly approved using the Critical Greek Text even though it was not the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. This meant that the English words in the King James Bible would be clarified or corrected by a Greek text that John Burgon deemed as "…a Text vastly more remote from the inspired autographs of the Evangelists than any which has appeared since the invention of printing." REVISION REVISED pages 25, 26.

Consider for a moment, if a Christian publishing company said they used only the New International Version in their published material but in that material explained the various nuances of the Greek words using the Received Greek Text, would that be honest? No, it would not and neither do I believe it is honest for Regular Baptist Press to do what they did and most likely continues to do. Now, I do not know how many other authors writing for Regular Baptist Press have done this but Mr. Miller’s remark did lead me to take a closer look at the other Regular Baptist Press materials I had on my shelves.

As I examined the other Regular Baptist Press material my attention was drawn to an adult lesson entitled KNOWING AND USING THE BIBLE by Wallace Alcorn and written for use in adult Vacation Bible School. KNOWING AND USING THE BIBLE has a copyright of 1975 and lists Merle R. Hull as the Executive Editor and Valerie Wilson as the VBS editor.

As I opened the Teacher’s Guide to KNOWING AND USING THE BIBLE I did not have to look far until I knew where Mr. Alcorn’s affections were placed as to Bible manuscripts. Mr. Alcorn wrote on page 11 of the Teacher’s Guide that "The three most important manuscripts extant today are the Vatican, the Sinaitic and the Alexandrian." Of the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts, John Burgon who lived at the time of Westcott and Hort, said they "…have within the last twenty years established a tyrannical ascendency over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as blind superstition." REVISION REVISED page 11. Burgon went on to say on page 26 of REVISION REVISED that Westcott and Hort had such a love for the Vatican manuscript that they believed "…when it stands alone, its readings must never be lightly rejected." This same superstition and love Westcott and Hort had for the Vatican, the Sinaitic, and Alexandrian manuscripts continues today. This superstition and devotion to these manuscripts is disseminated to the Christian public through the multitude of new English versions and materials published by Christian printing organizations such as the American Bible Society and Regular Baptist Press.

Mr. Alcorn shows his fondness to these three early manuscripts when he goes on to say on page 11 of the Teacher’s Guide that the "Scribes who copied the manuscripts (Vatican, Sinaitic, and Alexandrian) demonstrated great devotion to their task." That isn’t what Dean of Chichester John Burgon thought of these manuscripts. He wrote on pages 13 and 14 of REVISION REVISED that the Sinaitic manuscript is the most untrustworthy codex "…which bears on its front a memorable note of the evil repute under which it has always laboured: viz. it is found that at least ten revisers between the IVth and the XIIth centuries busied themselves with the task of correcting its many and extraordinary perversions of the truth of Scripture." The next in the line of impurity according to John Burgon is the Vatican manuscript. On page 15 of REVISION REVISED John Burgon says the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts have a "depraved text." Alcorn may believe these Scribes "demonstrated great devotion to their task" of manuscript copying but not so with Dean of Chichester John Burgon!

Reading further on we see Mr. Alcorn says on page 20 of the Teacher’s Guide KNOWING AND USING THE BIBLE that the "Autographs are the actual writings of the authors. None of the original autographs of Scripture exist today. We have only copies made from them. The autographs are approximated by a critical construction of the text. This is done by finding common readings among the oldest manuscripts and, thus, eliminating the variants in the more recent and less reliable texts." (Emphasis added by me). Note the teacher is being told that "the oldest" is the best while "the more recent" is the "less reliable" of the Greek texts. All this is doing is preparing the teacher for the coming assault on the King James Bible and its Received Greek Text. However, John Burgon had distaste for those "old manuscripts" and said they were "…the most scandalously corrupt copies extant:-exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with…." Emphasis Burgon’s, REVISION REVISED page 16.

In the student’s book of KNOWING AND USING THE BIBLE on pages 89, 90 there are listed numerous English Bible versions. Mr. Alcorn says that with all these many versions "No wonder the average Bible student is confused! He knows there is only one Bible; yet all these versions of the one Bible make it appear that there might be more than one. Moreover, the person who needs modern language versions the most (because he does not read biblical languages) is not in a position to judge critically those which appear." So, if the student cannot read the original languages of the Bible he is not qualified to make a critical judgment on the many English versions of the Bible? Then, what does this unqualified Bible student do?

The Regular Baptist Press textbook on pages 89 and 90 for KNOWING AND USING THE BIBLE goes on to tell the unqualified Bible student that there is a consensus "…of the scholars who exegetically study the Bible in modern languages and who teach these matters in the colleges and seminaries approved by the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches." Here we are introduced to "the scholars" and the unqualified Bible student is told that "the scholars" know more than he does. This is all because he is only an unqualified Bible student! These "scholars" know the original languages and will tell the Bible student the truth and nothing but the truth, so one would think. Alcorn continues in the Teacher’s Guide to say that when the "scholars" "…analyse and work from the modern language versions, they do so as men trained for and experienced in scientific procedures of investigation. Some have served as Bible translators." The student is supposed to be impressed with this!? These "scientific procedures of investigation" are what John Burgon called "a land of shadows." REVISION REVISED page 254.

Mr. Alcorn encourages the student to unhesitatingly follow the "scholars", for they know more than he the lowly student does! I wonder if Acts 17:11 is pertinent here? "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

Mr. Alcorn now writes in the student’s text page 90 that these "scholars" "…have a deep appreciation and warm affection for the Authorized Version of 1611. This is due not only to what God has been pleased to do through it in past years, but for its abiding worth" This high commendation is often given the King James Bible by the antagonist just before it is removed from its rightful place as God’s Word in the English language via their condemnation of the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. In the book THE MAKING OF A CONTEMPORARY TRANSLATION page 196 Edwin Palmer said "I love the King James Version (KJV). I was converted under it. My fist memory verses were taken from the KJV. I have been blessed by it. And God still uses the KJV. Salvation can still be found in the KJV. But the KJV is not the best translation to use today." I LOVE IT BUT! "Salvation can still be found in the KJV."? If these are lovers of the King James Bible one would hate to see its enemies.

Mr. Alcorn now reveals what he thinks of the Received Greek Text, for he writes in the student’s text book on page 90 that "It is acknowledged that the Greek text (the Received text) on which the AV is based is not the best text currently available. The original translation would have been even better had the more recently reconstructed text been available." Oh, the arrogance of these people! Let me reiterate, that this criticism of the King James Bible and the Received Greek Text was taking place in 1975! This criticism is being made in print with the consent of the official publishing house of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, Regular Baptist Press!

At this point I ask who is being divisive in this Greek text issue. No where in KNOWING AND USING THE BIBLE is John Burgon or Dr. D. A. Waite mentioned and their stand for the Received Greek Text. No where in KNOWING AND USING THE BIBLE are we ever told the Greek Text is an issue. We are only told that the King James is outdated and the Received Greek Text is not as good as the newly constructed Greek Text.

KNOWING AND USING THE BIBLE was written well before I really became aware of the issue. Thank the Lord I did not read KNOWING AND USING THE BIBLE until after reading Revision Revised by John Burgon! Only God knows how far down that anti-Bible road I would have travelled. Mr. Alcorn with RBP’s knowledge said the AV, King James Bible, is not based on "the best text currently available." Oh, if only the Critical Greek Text had been available when the King James was translated it would "have been even better" bewails Alcorn. However, John Burgon said in REVISION REVISED, page 235, that Alcorn’s favourite Greek Text was the result of "some ingenious theory-monger" and that the resultant Translation "…reads like a first-rate school-boy’s crib, -tasteless, unlovely, harsh, unidiomatic; -servile without being faithful, -pedantic without being really learned; -an unreadable Translation, in short; the result of a vast amount of labour indeed, but of wondrous little skill; -how all this has come about, it were utterly useless at this time of day to enquire." REVISION REVISED page 238. Are the new versions based on the same Critical Greek text much better? No, for good fruit will never come from a bad tree.

Mr. Alcorn and RBP were endorsing the Critical Greek Text in KNOWING AND USING THE BIBLE without printing one word from those who held to the superiority of the Received Greek Text! Mr. Alcorn and RBP are audacious indeed in their superciliousness and deception on the Greek textual issue. If the student and teacher did not know anything about another side to the issue before reading KNOWING AND USING THE BIBLE they would have probably swallowed all this mis-information hook line and sinker. The unquestioning teacher and student after reading KNOWING AND USING THE BIBLE would naturally desire to use the best English version of the Bible based on this "more recently reconstructed text."

But, wait a minute; Mr. Alcorn has more to say on the subject of the King James and its ill favoured Greek text. Mr. Alcorn, in the student text book on page 90, writes that "However, the Received Text was not corrupt, and variations have not made a bit of difference to doctrine or practice." The Received Text is not the best but it is not corrupt! Wow! The student may be a little confused by this but "If there is no doctrine or practice affected then I will stay with the King James Bible." Woe now, hold it right there, student of the Bible, for Mr. Alcorn adds that "Because of a better text, greater understanding of the languages and changes in English since 1611, the AV is not fully adequate for every purpose." So now the student is told he may use the King James Bible for its Greek text, the Received Text, is not corrupt, but in spite of that, the King James Bible is not the most "adequate for every purpose." Now the student might be wondering what purpose the King James is adequate for and what purposes it is not adequate for. Mr. Alcorn now answers that by reciting the Critical Text mantra that the King James Bible "…is still preferred for public worship and most general purposes, but use of modern versions in serious Bible study will help in further understanding of the Biblical text." Oh, the King James Bible is not adequate for "serious Bible study."! And I wonder why the preachers and churches have abandoned the King James Bible for another?

In the Teacher’s Guide page 31 Alcorn writes that "…the point of comparison is not the Authorized Version or any other one version, but the original languages. The worth of a translation stands or falls upon the adequacy of its representation of the original language Bible." That is so true and that is why John Burgon and others in his day and today hold to the Received Greek Text and the King James Bible. The Received Greek Text contains the original words of the original autographs! And the King James Bible is a faithful English translation from those original language words found in the Received Greek Text! John Burgon believed the translators of the King James Bible were men that "…understood their craft! ‘There were giants in those days.’ As little would they submit to be bound by the new cords of the Philistines as by their green withes. Upon occasion, they could shake themselves free from either. And why? For the selfsame reason: viz. because the SPIRIT of their God was mighty upon them." REVISION REVISED page 196. The same cannot be said of those translating the Scriptures today.

To add further endorsement for using another version as opposed to using the King James Bible, Alcorn displays in the Teacher’s Guide a chart of what English version is preferred by the GARBC "scholars" alluded to earlier. According to the Teacher’s Guide chart, in the year 1975, the preferred version of the theology and Bible professors, the "scholars", in approved Regular Baptist colleges and seminaries was the American Standard with 60%. That was in 1975! The New International Version was second with 59%, the New American Standard with 57%, New Scofield with 54% and with 52% the old Book God used in sending revivals and spiritual awakenings to England and America, the Authorized King James. Not far behind the King James was the New Berkeley at 50%. Remember, this survey was in 1975. Again it is worth noting that this is a survey of those professors, the "scholars", who were teaching in approved GARBC schools. The students of these "scholars" in 1975 were then future GARBC pastors and missionaries!

I wonder where would the King James Bible these "scholars" had such "a deep appreciation and warm affection" for in 1975 rate today? If the old Book only rated 52% then, it would certainly be much less today. Also, it is worth noting that those who the professors, the "scholars", were teaching in 1975 are today behind the pulpit and on the mission field teaching people what they were taught by their professor, the "scholar". Sad indeed! Sad that so many have swallowed the line that older is better. Sad that so many are being duped to go the way of the new versions and forsaking the old Book of Holy Ghost Heaven sent revivals and spiritual awakenings! Sad, the "scholars" have reared a generation of preachers who have forsaken the superior for the inferior. Sad indeed, that there will come a generation that will move even further from the words of God. But, on the other hand God always has a remnant and that remnant will continue to be faithful in holding to and using God’s Word as found in the Received Greek Text and the King James Bible.

Again, reiterating what Mr. Alcorn tells the teacher on page 31 of the Teacher’s Guide, that in "…the matter of modern versions, emphasize that the point of comparison is not the Authorized Version or any one version, but the original languages." But, which Text of the original Greek language are these people to go too, the Received Text or the Westcott and Hort Text? The answer undoubtedly Alcorn and Regular Baptist Press believes is the best is the Westcott and Hort Critical Text!

As I look back now, it is not surprising so many of the GARBC schools and churches have gone the way of the new versions when the Westcott and Hort Critical Greek Text has been lifted up and promoted as superior to the Received Greek Text in Regular Baptist Press publications such as KNOWING AND USING THE BIBLE.

This paper was written in September, 2004. So almost thirty years ago, this deceptive teaching regarding the King James Bible and the Received Greek Text appeared in Regular Baptist Press’ KNOWING AND USING THE BIBLE. However, devotion to the Critical Greek Text and the dishonesty of the Critical Greek Text crowd began much earlier than 1975. It began in the 1800’s with the dishonesty of Westcott and Hort. As John Burgon wrote in Revision Revised page three, the Revisers were only "To introduce as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version, consistently with faithfulness.’" We were not told that in KNOWING AND USING THE BIBLE. On page 2 of Revision Revised Dean John Burgon said that "…to construct a new Greek Text formed no part of the Instructions which the Revisionists received at the hands of the Convocation of the Southern Province." In other words, what Westcott and Hort set out to do was dethrone the Received Greek Text with a fabricated Greek text. They were dishonest and so are their children.

That dishonesty continues to this day. Churches who once used only the King James Bible have tossed the old Book aside for a new version because the preacher has fallen for a lie told by professors, the "scholars", that, older is better. Some students of those professors, the "scholars", also went out to write and edit Bible materials in Christian publishing houses. Today those professors, the "scholars, and those publishing houses have a lot to answer for!

In summing up, integrity demands that those Christian schools and Christian Publishing houses, such as Regular Baptist Press, who say they use only the King James Bible, but use the Critical Greek Text, stop using the King James Bible. If they continue to say they use only the King James Bible, honesty to the King James Bible demands they use the Received Greek Text underlying it. Or, they should come out of the closet and replace the old Book with a new English version based on the Critical Greek Text, which they purport to be the best!

This is not being picky but is a matter of Regular Baptist Press just being honest.