TEXTUAL CRITICISM: WHERE WILL IT LEAD THE FUNDAMENTALISTS?

Dallas Seminary has been known as an evangelical school producing some excellent Bible expositors even though the school has always followed the Westcott and Hort (W & H) Greek text. Daniel Wallace, a professor at Dallas, is of course a proponent of the Critical Greek Text as the school is. In his paper WITTENBERG 2002 Daniel Wallace said "This sabbatical has been dedicated to New Testament textual criticism, the science of determining the wording of the original documents." (Emphasis added). Daniel Wallace went on to say textual criticism is needed "…because there are hundreds of thousands of differences among the extant manuscripts (MSS). Only by a careful sifting of the data, and a rigorous comparison of MSS, can one increase in certainty as to what the original text said." (Emphasis added). Sifting to determine the words of God? OH, what "miserable comforters."

Daniel Wallace adds that he took a trip to "Mt. Sinai, to St. Catherine’s Monastery." Here he "spent a week looking at some of the ‘New Finds’ manuscripts. These are 200 biblical manuscripts that were discovered in 1975 when a fire broke out at St. George’s Tower, revealing a hidden compartment." Daniel Wallace continues saying that "In the compartment were 1200 manuscripts and 50,000 fragments (all undamaged by the fire). Among the 1200 manuscripts are over 200 biblical manuscripts. Most exciting among the discoveries were leaves of Codex Sinaiticus, the fourth-century MS that Tischendorf carried off to Russia in 1844 and 1859." It seems ironic that these manuscripts were found due to a fire as was Sinaiticus when Tischendorf found it in a waste paper basket waiting to be added to the fire. Daniel Wallace continues saying that "Sinaiticus contains the oldest complete Greek New Testament in existence—by 500 years! It now resides in the British Library in London. That’s another story. There are also over a dozen uncial MSS of the New Testament (uncial MSS are capital-letter MSS on parchment; all of them are dated no later than the tenth century and as early as the third century, making them quite valuable for determining the wording of the original)." (Emphasis added). Note how this textual criticism seeks to determine the wording of the originals!

Further on in this sabbatical paper Daniel Wallace writes that he "...headed out for Münster, Germany." "On the western edge of the old city is the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung, or the Institute for New Testament Textual Research. Founded in 1959 by Dr. Kurt Aland, this…building houses microfilms and photographs of virtually all Greek New Testament manuscripts known to exist. A few decades ago, Dr. Eldon Epp noted that there are probably more textual critics at this institute than there are in the rest of the world. That situation has changed to some degree, but Münster is still the epicenter for New Testament textual studies. I am here working, in part, on exhaustive collations of MSS of Paul’s letters. Every variant is noted for each MS that is examined. By doing this kind of work, one can determine, to some degree, what a particular scribe’s tendencies were. For example, if one MS tends to have "Christ" where other MSS have "Lord," its voice is discounted in places where other MSS join it in reading "Christ." But if that same MS has "Lord" in disputed places, its voice is weighed more heavily." (Emphasis added). After all this determination done by Mr. Wallace and other textual critics will we eventually have the Words and the Word of the living God?

Daniel Wallace is following in the steps of those textual critics before him who believed it is up to man to find and determine what the very words of God are. In seeking to find God’s Words Sir Frederick Kenyon in his book (first published in 1937) THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE page 14 says that "If the author’s original manuscripts had survived, it would of course be unnecessary to trouble about later and less accurate copies of it, or the works of revising editors; but since in the case of the Bible books, as also of all works of the classical authors and of nearly all mediaeval works, the original autographs and all early copies of them have disappeared, WE HAVE TO DO AS BEST WE CAN with such later copies as have survived. Where (as in the case of most classical authors) those copies are few in number and late in date, it is possible that in many passages the truth has survived in none of them, and can only be recovered, if at all, by conjecture; and such restorations can at best be regarded as probabilities, not certainties. Where (as in the case of the Bible) the extant copies are very numerous, and some of them very early, IT IS PERMISSABLE TO HOPE THAT THE TRUE READING IS TO BE FOUND SOMEWHERE AMONG THEM. TO FIND IT IS THE TASK OF THE TEXTUAL CRITIC." (Emphasis added). Where will this type of textual criticism lead?

In the INTRODUCTION to his book the KING JAMES DEFENDED Edward F. Hills says there "...are two methods of New Testament textual criticism, the consistently Christian method and the naturalistic method. These two methods deal with the same materials, the same Greek manuscripts, and the same translations and biblical quotations, but they interpret these materials differently. The consistently Christian method interprets the materials of New Testament textual criticism in accordance with the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures. The naturalistic method interprets these same materials in accordance with its own doctrine that the New Testament is nothing more than a human book."

"Sad to say, modern Bible-believing scholars have taken very little interest in the concept of consistently Christian New Testament textual criticism. For more than a century most of them have been quite content to follow in this area the naturalistic methods of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort. And the result of this equivocation has been truly disastrous. Just as in Pharaoh's dream the thin cows ate up the fat cows, so the principles and procedures of naturalistic New Testament textual criticism have spread into every department of Christian thought and produced a spiritual famine." (Emphasis added). A "spiritual famine" is what Dr. Hills said W & H’s principles and procedures has produced but has there been worse fruit to appear from this method of textual criticism?

Charles Haddon Spurgeon wrote in the August 1887 Sword and Trowel that "Certain ministers are making infidels. Avowed atheists are not a tenth as dangerous as those preachers who scatter doubt and stab at faith. A plain man told us the other day that two ministers had derided him because he thought we should pray for rain. A gracious woman bemoaned in my presence that a precious promise in Isaiah which had comforted her had been declared by her minister to be uninspired." (Emphasis added). Spurgeon went on to say that "Germany was made unbelieving by her preachers, and England is following in her track." He concluded by saying that that these ministers no "doubt never intended it to go so far; but none the less they have done the ill, and cannot undo it."

I believe the unbelief that took place in Spurgeon’s day came about through W & H’s naturalistic textual criticism where man stands as judge over the Words and Word of God. That is why Spurgeon relates how a dear lady was told a promise in Isaiah was uninspired. Is this any different than fundamentalists saying the last twelve verses of Mark are not authentic and therefore not a part of the inspired Word of God? I believe this naturalistic textual criticism followed by many of today’s fundamentalists will eventually produce within the ranks of fundamentalism unbelief just as it did in preceding generations.

Even though the naturalistic method began before W & H as shown by Hills and others, they are the one’s who made the naturalistic method of textual criciticism acceptable and popular! The W & H method of textual criticism (as we shall see later) displays a lack of faith in God’s preservation of His inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words. Through W & H’s textual criticism today’s fundamentalists have brought ill repute on the authenticity and therefore the inspiration of the last twelve verses of Mark and the woman taken in adultery John 7: 53 – 8:11, to name just two passages. The W & H naturalistic textual criticism method spreads doubt and stabs at the faith of today’s believers as it did in Spurgeon’s day. As Spurgeon said of those in his day so it may be said of today’s fundamentalist following W & H that they too probably "never intended it to go so far; but none the less they have done the ill, and cannot undo it."

It is interesting to note that Spurgeon said the unbelief of his day sprang from Germany. German unbelief is theological liberalism. Robert Lightner, of Dallas Seminary, in his book NEO-LIBERALISM (published 1972) page 19 says the father of liberalism was "Friedrich Daniel Schleiermacher (1768-1834)." Guess where Schleiermacher was born? He went on to say that Schleiermacher "founded his authority in the soul’s experiences rather than in the Bible." "Human reason became the determining factor as to what was and what was not the Word of God. Rather than the Bible standing as the judge over men, men stood over it as the final authority." NEO-LIBERALISM page 21 (Emphasis added).

Lightner goes on to say that "With the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859), the creation of man and things seemed to be obsolete; thus this publication placed disrepute in the minds of the people upon the first chapters of the Bible." NEO-LIBERALISM page 22. "The reason for their gross unbelief was that they applied the scientific method to the Bible." NEO-LIBERALISM page 23. Then on the same page Lightner adds that even "The existence of Jesus in history was even doubted by many."

WHAT?! "THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS IN HISTORY WAS EVEN DOUBTED by many." This doubt still exists today. The Jesus Seminar is considered by most if not all fundamentalists as anything but theologically conservative. The Jesus Seminar has allowed human reason to be the determining factor as to what is and is not the Word of God. To those at the Jesus Seminar the Bible does not stand over man as Judge but man stands over the Bible as judge. Man is the final authority. The following is from the EXCERPT ON VOTING AND COLOR-CODING FROM THE INTRODUCTION TO THE FIVE GOSPELS. "Voting was adopted, after extended debate, as the most efficient way of ascertaining whether a scholarly consensus existed on a given point. Committees creating a critical text of the Greek New Testament under the auspices of the United Bible Societies vote on whether to print this or that text and what variants to consign to notes. These committees will "vote in the course of their deliberations on which translation proposal to accept and which to reject." (Emphasis added). Note the type of Greek text they constructed was a critical Greek text with the support of the UBS! What kind of Greek text would one expect determined by human reasoning?

The excerpt continues by saying "It was deemed entirely consonant with the mission of the Jesus Seminar to decide whether, after careful review of the evidence, a particular saying or parable did or did not fairly represent the voice of the historical Jesus." (Emphasis added). These textual critics at the Jesus Seminar set themselves in judgement over the Scriptures deciding what Jesus said or did not say. This is the fruit of unbelief! Where did it stem from? The principles and procedures set forth by W & H. In spite of what some fundamentalists may say W & H textual criticism eventually leads to liberalism and unbelief for it is not a consistently Christian method of faith! Sadly, as the fundamentalists follow these same principles and procedures of W & H the fruit will be that of unbelief.

Considering what the Jesus Seminar has done to the sayings of Jesus it is fair to ask, what did Jesus mean in John 5: 39 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."? Did Jesus really mean they had the Scriptures at that time to search or not? They certainly did not have the originals so they must have had copies. So, was Jesus saying to search those copies of the original Scriptures that would "testify of" Him? Or did Jesus mean they needed to develop some procedures and principles by which they may critically evaluate the copies of Old Testament writings hoping that by their critical evaluation they might, just might, find the real words of the Old Testament Scriptures and then they might, just might, ascertain those Scriptures of which Jesus said would "testify of" Him? It is of utmost importance that God’s Word never be treated just like any other book of antiquity for then human reason takes over and biblical faith ceases! This is the W & H method.

Many fundamentalists find themselves bowing at the feet of so called scholarship. This has often times placed man as judge and authority over the Word of God. Man decides what God said and what God did not say. Did Jesus say that? On page 11 FROM THE MIND OF GOD TO THE MIND OF MAN Randolph Shaylor says that "Textual criticism is a necessary and POSITIVE discipline to determine which of the present manuscripts most accurately represents the original in any given instance." (Emphasis is in the book). Here, Shaylor, a fundamentalist and graduate of Bob Jones University, is saying man will "determine" what God has said. This is exactly what those in the Jesus Seminar did. This is the W & H naturalistic method of textual criticism which allows human reasoning to be "the determining factor as to what was and was not the Word of God. Rather than the Bible standing as the judge over men, men stood over it as the final authority" page 21 NEO-LIBERALISM.

Dr. Thomas Strouse Dean of Emmanuel Baptist Seminary wrote a review of the book FROM THE MIND OF GOD TO THE MIND OF MAN. He says "A fourth factor for the book's failure is the extreme defense of fallible mortals such as Westcott and Hort." He goes on to say "A fifth factor causing the failure of From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man to achieve its purposes is the unbiblical nature of the major premise of the Westcott-Hort position." Alas Shaylor along with many other fundamentalists continue to follow the rules of textual criticism formulated by W and H. The following summary are the principles of Westcott and Hort taken from Epp and Fee’s, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (1993, pages 157-8). The references in parentheses refer to sections of Hort's Introduction, from which the principles have been extracted.

1. Older readings, manuscripts, or groups are to be preferred. ("The shorter the interval between the time of the autograph and the end of the period of transmission in question, the stronger the presumption that earlier date implies greater purity of text.") (2.59; cf. 2.5-6, 31)

W & H had their rules but in the end what did they really do? Sir Frederic Kenyon in THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE page 87 said that W & H "made the Vaticanus the sheet-anchor of their edition." Kenyon stated further on page 168 that when Sinaiticus and Vanticanus (B) differ Hort would "give the preference to B."

The question may be asked "what type of textual criticism was prominent before Westcott and Hort?" Edward F. Hills says in the third chapter of his book THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED that "NEW Testament textual criticism cannot properly be said to have begun until the New Testament was first placed in print in 1516, one year before the commencement of the Protestant Reformation. Hence the first New Testament textual critics were editors such as Erasmus (1466-1536), printers such as Stephanus (1503-1559), and Reformers such as Calvin (1509-1564) and Beza (1519-1605). A study of Calvin's commentaries and the notes of Erasmus and Beza indicates that these 16th-century scholars had not worked out any clearly defined system of New Testament textual criticism. In this department of biblical study they were unmethodical, and some of their remarks concerning the New Testament canon and text reflect the humanistic culture in which they had been reared. But in their actual editing and printing of the New Testament they were guided by the common faith in the Received Text. For in their appeal to the New Testament against the errors of the papacy and the Roman Catholic doctrinal system these Reformers were not introducing a novelty but were falling back on a principle which long before the Reformation had been acknowledged by everyone. For centuries it had been commonly believed that the currently received New Testament text, primarily the Greek text and secondarily the Latin text, was the True New Testament Text which had been preserved by God's special providence. It was out of this common faith, therefore, that the printed Textus Receptus was born through the editorial labors of Erasmus and his successors under the guiding hand of God. Hence during the Reformation Period the approach to the New Testament text was theological and governed by the common faith in holy Scripture, and for this reason even in those early days the textual criticism of the New Testament was different from the textual criticism of other ancient books."

According to Hills then, the Reformers approach to textual criticism of the "New Testament text was theological and governed by the common faith in holy Scripture, and for this reason even in those early days the textual criticism of the New Testament was different from the textual criticism of other ancient books." Their approach was opposite of W & H’s which was naturalistic. In spite of W & H’s naturalist approach many fundamental Christian colleges and universities enthusiastically follow their rules. Bob Jones University has been a bastion for fundamentalism for years but as 2 Kings 4:40 says "there is death in the pot" and that death is in the pot known as the Greek department. In the POSITION OF THE BIBLE DEPARTMENT OF BOB JONES UNIVERSITY ON THE SCRIPTURE it is stated that "Today there are two Greek texts available. One is the Received Text, edited by [a] Roman Catholic scholar, Erasmus, in the sixteenth century and based on manuscripts of the late Middle Ages." Just from this you get the idea they do not like the Received Text.

"The King James Version was based upon the "Received Text"; the American Standard Version was based upon the text of Westcott and Hort. We do not believe that either of these texts is ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative.’ Not only Erasmus but also Westcott and Hort were seeking to present a close copy of the original text. We are interested in which one is closer to the original text of the New Testament." I too am interested in which text is closer to the originals.

"Therefore, along with the great majority of conservative scholars, we believe that the text based upon the Alexandrian manuscripts is, as a whole, superior to the text based upon manuscripts of the Middle Ages."

Now, how did they come to this conclusion? They came to this conclusion based on W & H’s rules of textual criticism. Hills in DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE quotes Hort saying "we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety, and antiquity." This is naturalistic rather than by faith. Dr. Strouse says in his review of FROM THE MIND OF GOD TO THE MIND OF MAN that "Assurance in God's having inspired and preserved His Words does not come through Textual Criticism but through "faith [which] cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10:17). This is the historical faith of those of whom Jesus declared, ‘My sheep hear my voice’ (Jn. 10:27)."

POSITION OF THE BIBLE DEPARTMENT OF BOB JONES UNIVERSITY ON THE SCRIPTURE continues saying "The portion of the New Testament that has any substantial variation between the various manuscripts is only about one word in a thousand. These variations in no way change the teaching of the New Testament on any doctrine. Therefore, we consider this not an issue of modernism versus conservatism but a matter of individual judgment on the part of Fundamental Christians. Christians should be free to choose and use either of these texts and still work together in harmony to teach and preach the Word of God to those who are without it." Is this true that the variation "is only about one word in a thousand"?

Dr. Strouse aptly says in his review of FROM THE MIND OF GOD TO THE MIND OF MAN that "A third factor for the book's failure is its misstatement of fact. Several authors declare that the variants between the modern texts/translations and the Textus Receptus (TR) and the Authorized Version are so small ("less than one page of my entire Testament" p. 86) that no concern should be taken (pp. 97, 183). The fact of the matter is that the Critical Text of Westcott-Hort differs from the TR, mostly by deletions, in 9,970 words out of 140,521, giving a total of 7% difference. In the 480-page edition of the Trinitarian Bible Society Textus Receptus this would amount to almost 34 pages, the equivalent of the final two books of the New Testament, Jude and Revelation. This certainly does not sound like ‘no cause for concern.’" THIRTY FOUR PAGES! The equivalent of Jude and Revelation! This is not a small insignificant matter!

Dr. Floyd Jones in his paper RIPPED OUT OF THE BIBLE writes on page 27 that "It is necessary to go to the Greek texts underlying these versions to obtain such. Even this will not yield a completely accurate count since a version will usually not follow one of the standard Greek editions at every point. However, the matter may be simplified by the realization that there are really only two kinds of Greek New Testaments – the Received Text and the Modern Critical Text. The Authorized (King James) Bible and all other Reformation Bibles were based on the former and practically all modern Bibles on the latter. We will not here examine their relative merits but will rather show book by book and chapter by chapter that the Critical Text is shorter.

The two most popular editions of the Critical Text are: The Nestle–Aland 26th Edition, and The United Bible Society 3rd Edition. These have a different format, but their text is identical. The most widely used edition of the Received Text was that prepared by Robert Stephanus in 1550. The KJB does not follow Stephanus in every instance, nor is the NIV text identical with the Nestle–Aland, but they are extremely close. Thus these two Greek Testaments provide a basis for comparison. The following gives a chapter by chapter comparison of the Stephanus 1550 (number of words given first) and the Nestle–Aland 26th. Keep in mind that word omissions are only part of the story, there are also many word alterations in the modern version text."

Dr. Jones then gives the following chart with emphasis being his:

"MATTHEW

(1) 445 - 438 (2) 458 - 457 (3) 334 - 335 (4) 432 - 427

(5) 841 - 822 (6) 683 - 653 (7) 514 - 517 (8) 599 - 585

(9) 657 - 646 (10) 721 - 724 (11) 498 - 493 (12) 920 - 905

(13) 1096 - 1076 (14) 565 - 561 (15) 625 - 610 (16) 533 - 525

(17) 517 - 496 (18) 695 - 668 (19) 549 - 533 (20) 572 - 542

(21) 869 - 865 (22) 668 - 661 (23) 688 - 656 (24) 835 - 825

(25) 773 - 763 (26) 1274 - 1239 (27) 1036 - 1008 (28) 341 - 329

Total: 18,738 – 18,359 = 379 fewer words in the modern version text

MARK

(1) 721 - 708 (2) 558 - 541 (3) 541 - 547 (4) 698 - 682

(5) 710 - 697 (6) 1017 - 981 (7) 631 - 605 (8) 644 - 630

(9) 914 - 858 (10) 919 - 885 (11) 595 - 563 (12) 837 - 793

(13) 637 - 606 (14) 1234 - 1197 (15) 689 - 667 (16) 301 - 308*

Total: 11,646 – 11,268 = 378 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 1204 - 1186 (2) 864 - 849 (3) 594 - 585 (4) 799 - 767

(5) 760 - 754 (6) 957 - 924 (7) 913 - 890 (8) 1117 - 1086

(9) 1199 - 1151 (10) 808 - 782 (11) 1028 - 978 (12) 1059 - 1036

(13) 672 - 663 (14) 612 - 607 (15) 564 - 561 (16) 605 - 595

(17) 583 - 570 (18) 688 - 683 (19) 767 - 762 (20) 719 - 702

(21) 593 - 586 (22) 1113 - 1086 (23) 878 - 852 (24) 843 - 818

Total: 19,939 – 19,473 = 466 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 844 - 829 (2) 434 - 430 (3) 671 - 658 (4) 952 - 946

(5) 830 - 792 (6) 1283 - 1241 (7) 871 - 861 (8) 1115 - 1070*

(9) 698 - 692 (10) 711 - 695 (11) 985 - 944 (12) 888 - 892

(13) 668 - 665 (14) 592 - 580 (15) 499 - 500 (16) 601 - 581

(17) 512 - 499 (18) 804 - 779 (19) 821 - 821 (20) 627 - 614

(21) 551 - 547

Total: 15,957 – 15,636 = 321 fewer words in the modern version text

*The modern versions either omit, place in the footnotes, question their authenticity, or place in brackets, Mark

16:9 – 20 and John 7: 53 – 8:11.

(1) 511 - 506 (2) 848 - 839 (3) 504 - 506 (4) 682 - 687

(5) 787 - 771 (6) 280 - 280 (7) 1136 - 1113 (8) 723 - 695

(9) 812 - 786 (10) 872 - 837 (11) 533 - 528 (12) 496 - 501

(13) 954 - 932 (14) 481 - 472 (15) 716 - 694 (16) 723 - 721

(17) 677 - 673 (18) 528 - 511 (19) 766 - 756 (20) 694 - 676

(21) 814 - 798 (22) 584 - 567 (23) 676 - 662 (24) 495 - 459

(25) 539 - 530 (26) 597 - 596 (27) 748 - 755 (28) 618 - 597

Total: 18,794 – 18,448 = 346 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 547 - 543 (2) 452 - 448 (3) 432 - 429 (4) 408 - 402

(5) 431 - 432 (6) 372 - 367 (7) 467 - 469 (8) 662 - 652

(9) 531 - 524 (10) 345 - 340 (11) 595 - 581 (12) 307 - 305

(13) 275 - 270 (14) 393 - 379 (15) 550 - 543 (16) 437 - 424

Total: 7,204 – 7,108 = 96 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 502 - 501 (2) 293 - 288 (3) 347 - 341 (4) 347 - 345

(5) 231 - 220 (6) 344 - 335 (7) 690 - 686 (8) 227 - 225

(9) 452 - 450 (10) 484 - 463 (11) 538 - 531 (12) 475 - 471

(13) 199 - 196 (14) 624 - 608 (15) 852 - 847 (16) 328 - 323

Total: 6,933 – 6,830 = 103 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 488 - 488 (2) 286 - 285 (3) 299 - 296 (4) 323 - 322

(5) 343 - 338 (6) 266 - 266 (7) 331 - 329 (8) 413 - 409

(9) 287 - 284 (10) 314 - 311 (11) 502 - 500 (12) 415 - 412

(13) 242 - 236

Total: 4,509 – 4,476 = 33 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 362 - 364 (2) 383 - 386 (3) 464 - 454 (4) 451 - 445

(5) 319 - 314 (6) 272 - 267

Total: 2,251 – 2,230 = 21 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 404 - 401 (2) 362 - 362 (3) 337 - 325 (4) 486 - 483

(5) 472 - 457 (6) 401 - 393

Total: 2,462 – 2,421 = 41 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 499 - 501 (2) 434 - 431 (3) 349 - 340 (4) 359 - 357

Total: 1,641 – 1,629 = 12 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 552 - 538 (2) 403 - 388 (3) 378 - 369 (4) 288 - 286

Total: 1,621 – 1,581 = 40 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 219 - 214 (2) 393 - 390 (3) 253 - 248 (4) 308 - 310

(5) 322 - 319

Total: 1,495 – 1,481 = 14 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 237 - 235 (2) 319 - 310 (3) 278 - 274

Total: 834 – 819 = 15 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 310 - 306 (2) 190 - 186 (3) 209 - 207 (4) 225 - 221

(5) 336 - 328 (6) 354 - 343

Total: 1,624 – 1,591 = 33 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 318 - 317 (2) 361 - 358 (3) 238 - 236 (4) 337 - 327

Total: 1,254 – 1,238 = 16 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 253 - 251 (2) 190 - 189 (3) 223 - 219

Total: 666 – 659 = 7 fewer words in the modern version text

Total: 339 – 334 = 5 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 255 - 256 (2) 321 - 313 (3) 281 - 283 (4) 292 - 291

(5) 234 - 232 (6) 303 - 301 (7) 459 - 456 (8) 283 - 274

(9) 509 - 512 (10) 559 - 550 (11) 639 - 633 (12) 479 - 474

(13) 376 - 378

Total: 4,990 – 4,953 = 37 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 411 - 406 (2) 428 - 416 (3) 300 - 295 (4) 278 - 277

(5) 346 - 348

Total: 1,763 – 1,742 = 21 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 415 - 409 (2) 395 - 393 (3) 378 - 370 (4) 322 - 305

(5) 214 - 207

Total: 1,724 – 1,684 = 40 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 385 - 384 (2) 376 - 374 (3) 343 - 341

Total: 1,104 – 1,099 = 5 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 207 - 207 (2) 579 - 587 (3) 471 - 469 (4) 453 - 449

(5) 465 - 429

Total: 2,175 – 2,141 = 34 fewer words in the modern version text

Total: 249 – 245 = 4 fewer words in the modern version text

Total: 218 – 219 = 1 more word in the modern version text

Total: 452 – 461 = 9 more words in the modern version

(1) 500 - 469 (2) 636 - 622 (3) 526 - 525 (4) 293 - 293

(5) 351 - 338 (6) 422 - 417 (7) 406 - 398 (8) 307 - 319

(9) 495 - 497 (10) 292 - 292 (11) 494 - 496 (12) 436 - 438

(13) 444 - 447 (14) 545 - 549 (15) 222 - 217 (16) 484 - 470

(17) 444 - 442 (18) 622 - 626 (19) 535 - 526 (20) 411 - 407

(21) 621 - 611 (22) 455 - 452

Total: 9,941 – 9,851 = 90 fewer words in the modern version text

SUB TOTAL: 140,523 - 137,976 = 2,547* fewer words in the modern version text

*After taking the two well-known passages into account in Mark 16 and John 7:53 - 8:11 (as shown on page 35), the final tally is:

Dr. Jones then writes on page 31 "Thus, the modern version text is shorter in the New Testament than that of the King James Bible by about the total number of words contained in I and II Peter combined!" Is Bob Jones University telling the truth in their paper when they say "These variations in no way change the teaching of the New Testament on any doctrine."?

I firmly believe BJU and other fundamental schools are following a path leading to unbelief. Remember what Lightner said on page 22 of NEO-LIBERALISM concerning Darwin’s book, Origin of Species? "With the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859), the creation of man and things seemed to be obsolete; thus this publication placed disrepute in the minds of the people upon the first chapters of the Bible." What did W & H think of Darwin and his book, Origin of Species? Hort said "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument in more detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." Life, Vol. I, p.416. Did Hort’s belief in Darwin’s theory have any influence on his work in constructing the Critical Greek Text? In 1890, several years after the publication of the Critical Greek text, Westcott said "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history – I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did - yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere." Did this unbelief show itself in their work and eventually in their students?

What did Westcott and Hort think of the Textus Receptus which underlies the King James Bible? Hort said "I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones" Life, Vol.I, p.211. His opinion of the Textus Receptus was not a high one for sure. Does their aversion for the Textus Receptus show itself with their followers? What did Westcott and Hort believe about the infallibility of the Scriptures? In 1860 Westcott said "...I reject the word infallibility - of Holy Scripture overwhelming." Life, Vol.I, p.207. These are statements from the men who formed the Critical Greek Text which according to Douglas Kutilek in his paper WESTCOTT & HORT VS. TEXTUS RECEPTUS: WHICH IS SUPERIOR? is the basis for the "New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses." There is death in the pot!

Again going back to BJU’s POSITION OF THE BIBLE DEPARTMENT OF BOB JONES UNIVERSITY ON THE SCRIPTURE it is stated that "When we teach the content of the Bible, we naturally study a passage in the Greek Testament. To aid the students in understanding that passage, we will take to class the King James Bible, which often gives an exact rendering of the Greek." (Emphasis added). Note they "will take to class the King James Bible." Do they say this to keep on side certain preachers and churches? But, the Greek text that will be used in the BJU Greek department will be the Critical Text for they "…believe that the text based upon the Alexandrian manuscripts is, as a whole, superior…" (Emphasis added). This is like working on a Ford with a Chevrolet manual.

Dr. Thomas Strouse in BIBLE TRANSLATIONS AND BIBLE COLLEGES says a "problem develops when a Bible college uses the AV in Bible classes and uses the CT in Greek. This practice gives the appearance of inconsistency to supporting churches and it raises questions in the mind of the student concerning the authority of Scripture." That is exactly what it does! When the authenticity of certain passages of Scripture is denied the authority of Scripture will be denied leading to unbelief!

But what about the variations "between the various manuscripts" which BJU says "is only about one word in a thousand."? They say "These variations in no way change the teaching of the New Testament on any doctrine." (Emphasis added).

Again I ask, "Are they correct?" Dr. Thomas Strouse in BIBLE TRANSLATIONS AND BIBLE COLLEGES says the variants among the texts comprising the Textus Receptus are very few but the "Variants between the texts underlying the CT, however, are on such a large scale as to stagger the textual scholar who considers them. For example, in the Gospels alone there are 7,578 differences between codex B and the TR, and 8,972 differences between codex Aleph and the TR. From these facts it is evident that even among the two favorite texts of the CT adherents there are thousands of differences! How can these variant readings among the CT supporting texts be sorted out and any single dependable text restored?" Good question but the BJU professors do not see it as a problem.

Remember when Edward F. Hills said that "during the Reformation Period the approach to the New Testament text was theological"? Dr. Strouse says in BIBLE TRANSLATIONS AND BIBLE COLLEGES that "A very large number of the changes, omissions, and additions in the CT are of theological significance. The full name and title of the Lord Jesus Christ is changed repeatedly. Entire portions of Scriptures, such as Mk. 16:9-20 and Jn. 7:53-8:11, included in the TR MSS, are left out. CT proponents often argue that these changes affect no doctrine, but what about the doctrine of Providential Preservation which is inextricably woven with the foundational doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration? If words are added, omitted, or changed, how can these two doctrines remain unaffected?" (Emphasis added). So who is telling the truth, BJU who follows W & H’s naturalistic principles and procedures or Dr. Strouse?

Bob Jones University says it believes in the inspiration of the original autographs which is fine but the problem is in their belief of preservation. They say in their POSITION OF THE BIBLE DEPARTMENT OF BOB JONES UNIVERSITY ON THE SCRIPTURE that "…God in His providence has preserved for us the original reading through the large number of manuscripts in existence that witness to the text of the New Testament." But they conclude the best Greek text brought forth from those manuscripts is the so-called W & H "Alexandrian text". This is the text differing from the Received Text in enough places to comprise the books of Jude and Revelation together. This is preservation?

Again quoting Dr. Strouse in his review of FROM THE MIND OF GOD TO THE MIND OF MAN "It is very difficult to understand why fundamentalists resist the Biblical and theological teaching of the Verbal Plenary Preservation View and yet default to the dangerous Conceptual Preservation View. Westcott and Hort wanted to restore the 4th Century text, based on Catholic (B) and Egyptian (papyri) MSS, arguing that there was no textual tampering and utilizing inapplicable Genealogies, assumed Text-types, and the supposed Lucianic Rescension to dispose of the Textus Receptus. The goal of modern Textual Criticism is to restore or reconstruct the Biblical text (p. 106) that God apparently chose not to preserve. The liberals' humanistic approach seems obvious, but why do some fundamentalists fail to see that the Lord does not need man's help? It is strange indeed for fundamentalists to countenance liberal views, either deliberately or by default."

There is death in the pot at BJU and unbelief will be the result!

Another fundamental school following the W & H path of naturalistic textual criticism is Detroit Baptist Seminary (DBS). In November 1996 Detroit Baptist Seminary formed a statement on INSPIRATION AND PRESERVATION. This statement says that "…even as a New Testament author could use the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, as the authoritative Word of God (e.g., Heb 2:7 quotes Ps 8:5 from the Septuagint; Heb 11:21 likewise quotes Gen 47:31), so may any translation that is faithful to the autographs be held up as the Word of God." (Emphasis added). What is the character of this Septuagint of which the DBS statement says a New Testament author used? Dr. D. A. Waite in his book DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE page 29 says the Septuagint "is a very deficient translation from the Hebrew into the Greek. In many books and places, it is just like the LIVING VERSION. It is a paraphrase, a perversion." (Emphasis is in the book). Dr. Waite does not believe any New Testament author quoted from the Septuagint but rather from the Hebrew Old Testament itself.

The DBS statement continues by saying that "While the Bible clearly teaches the ultimate indestructibility of the verbal revelation of God (Matt 24:35; 1 Pet 1:25), it does not tell how and where the written manuscript lineage of that Word is preserved. We believe that God has providentially preserved His word in the many manuscripts, fragments, versions, translations, and copies of the Scriptures that are available, and that by diligent study, comparison, and correlation, the original text (words) can be ascertained. We therefore hold that the integrity of any text, text type, translation, version, or copy of the Scriptures is to be judged by the autographs only and not by an English translation or any other reproduction or translation." (Emphasis added).

In the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (DBSJ) the Fall of 2000 William Combs wrote the article THE PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE. William Combs says in this article on page 6 that "preservation can be classified a number of ways. At the most fundamental level, one can make a twofold division: (1) those who deny the Scriptures teach any doctrine of preservation and (2) those who affirm there is a doctrine of preservation taught by the Scriptures, either directly or indirectly. However, a threefold division is more helpful since those in group 2, who affirm a doctrine of preservation, are themselves sharply divided as to what that doctrine teaches. On one side are those who believe that the Scriptures have been preserved in the totality of the biblical manuscripts (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), and, on the other side, are those who believe that the Scriptures have only been accurately preserved in the KJV/TR/MT tradition—that any other textual tradition is corrupt." He then states on page 7 that "Those in group 1, who deny a doctrine of preservation, believe Scripture has been preserved, but it is only a historical reality—a fact that is clear from the historical evidence. Those in group 2, who affirm a doctrine of preservation, also believe that the historical evidence demonstrates the preservation of Scripture, but add that this preservation is a theological necessity—Scripture must be preserved because Scripture itself promises its own preservation."

William Combs on page 7 then discusses the position of Daniel Wallace, Dallas Seminary, and Ed Glenny, formerly a professor at Central Baptist Seminary, Minneapolis, MN as "a rather novel one." William Combs says "It is clearly the rise of the KJV/TR movement that has sparked the recent discussions by Wallace and Glenny, and it is principally the particular doctrine of preservation found in the KJV/TR position that they are seeking to refute—a preservation that hints at, and often openly declares, the perfect preservation of the text of Scripture. But in refuting that extreme view, they have eliminated any vestige of the preservation of Scripture as a doctrine." (Emphasis added).

William Combs then on page 11 quotes the DBS statement on INSPIRATION AND PRESERVATION which says that those at Detroit Baptist Seminary "…believe that God has providentially preserved His word in the many manuscripts, fragments, versions, translations, and copies of the Scriptures that are available, and that by diligent study, comparison, and correlation, the original text (words) can be ascertained." He then states on pages 11 and 12 that "There is nothing new about this viewpoint. B. B. Warfield understood this to be the clear teaching of the Westminster Confession" and he quotes the Westminster Confession.

Dr. Combs then on page 12 gives two quotes from two contemporary men. The first is a quote from BJU’s Thurman Wisdom saying "Verbal inspiration is useless without verbal preservation." The second quote is from Faith Baptist Theological Seminary’s Dr. Myron Houghton saying "A view of inspiration without a corresponding view of preservation is of no value." I would agree with both men but it isn’t only what a man says it is what a man does not say.

On pages 12 and 13 William Combs says the King James Bible advocates "In order to prove a doctrine of preservation, a number of Scripture passages in which the phrase "the word(s) of God" (or Lord) is used are commonly appealed to. It is customarily assumed, usually with no supporting argumentation, that this expression universally refers to Scripture, God’s written revelation. However, a study of this phrase suggests that, more often than not, God’s written revelation is not in view." Combs says this because he personally believes the "texts that seem to promise preservation of ‘the word of God’ need to be examined carefully to determine if such an application is valid." THE PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE page 14.

William Combs’ argument comes close to what Dr. Thomas Strouse warns us of in his review of the book A CRITIQUE OF GOD’S WORD IN OUR HANDS: THE BIBLE PRESERVED FOR US. He writes that "Neo-orthodoxy developed out of liberalism after World War I as apostates began to redefine Biblically orthodox terms. One major area of redefining was with regard to the Bible. Neo-Orthodox theologians referred to the Word of God but did not identify it with the Scriptures. GWOH gives a new and un-Biblical definition to the expression "the Word of God," coming strikingly close to the claims of the old Neo-Orthodoxy. Neo-Orthodoxy speaks of the Word of God as something other than the written Bible. One of the academicians, Samuel Schnaiter, has labored under cloud of the charge of Neo-Orthodoxy since 1983 when Charles Woodbridge labeled him thus. Although ‘Word of God’ may mean the spoken or preached message of God, it ultimately refers to the inscripturated canonical Words of God, which definition GWOH rejects. The thesis of the GWOH is that God has preserved the Word of God, or ‘the message,’ in the totality of manuscripts (pp. xxi-xxii). Harding bemoans that ‘serious departures from the preserved message in Scripture are occurring…’ (p. 335). This suggests two Neo-Orthodox affirmations: God’s Word is the message and the message (God’s Word) is in, but not identical to, the Scripture. Furthermore, Downey asserts ‘God’s Word transcends written documents, even the physical universe, and will be completely and ultimately fulfilled if not one copy remains. The power and effectiveness and duration of the Word of God, and man’s responsibility to obey it, do not demand the presence or even the existence of any physical copy’ (p. 376). These surmisings are not Biblical since the Lord identifies the inspired Word of God with the inscripturated canonical Words of God, stating, "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words (remata), hath one that judgeth him: the word (logos) that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day" (Jn. 12:48; cf. Rev. 20:12). The writers emphasize that not all of Christ’s Words or God’s Words are written down (p. 367). That is true. But that for which the mankind will be responsible are the preserved, written canonical Words of God (Mt. 24:35). Christ wrote some unknown Words in the sand (Jn. 8:6, 8), but man will not be held responsible for them at the judgment. Christ presumably said things in His teachings that were not written down (Jn. 21:25) and man won’t be accountable for those words. Believers will now be accountable for "it is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35) only because Paul preached and Luke recorded this "agrapha" of the Lord. Man will not be held responsible for God’s spoken revelation other than the perfectly preserved and inscripturated canonical Scriptures."

The first passage Dr. Combs deals with is Psalm 12:6–7. His conclusion on page 15 is "most interpreters and versions understand the promise of preservation in verse 7 to apply to the ‘poor’ and ‘needy’ of verse 5." He then quotes the New International Version of Psalm 12:6-7. On page 14 his concluding remark on Psalm 12: 6-7 is that "this passage has no bearing on the doctrine of preservation."

Dr. Thomas Strouse comes to a different conclusion to Psalm 12:6-7 than Dr. Combs does. Dr. Strouse writes on page five in the conclusion of his paper on PSALM 12:6-7 AND THE PERMANENT PRESERVATION OF GOD’S WORDS that "The structure, content and exegesis of the Masoretic Hebrew Text of Psalm 12 all argue forcefully and irrefragable for the promise of the everlasting preservation of the perfect Words of the Lord. This is one of several clear passages in which the Lord promised to preserve His canonical Words for every generation. Man’s pervasive words are lies, God’s ever-present Words are Truth. This is the tangible help from the Lord that the righteous man has in every generation."

This paper will not take the time to look at all the passages Combs takes up which are; Psalms 119:89, 152, 160; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 5:17–18, 24:35; John 10:35; and 1 Peter 1:23–25. We will simply quote what he says on page 26 which is "Thus we conclude that some of the verses discussed above do teach a doctrine of preservation, some more directly and others more indirectly. However, they do not support the view of preservation that is put forth by the KJV/TR camp—that God has perfectly preserved the Bible to our day. Instead, they only suggest a general promise of preservation without specifying how (what method) or to what extent (how pure) God has chosen to preserve his Word." (Emphasis added).

On page 30 Dr. Combs under the heading THE METHOD AND EXTENT OF PRESERVATION says that "Though it has been demonstrated that a doctrine of preservation can be rightly affirmed both directly and indirectly from the overall biblical teaching, it is important to make clear that none of these Scripture texts and arguments tell us how God would preserve his Word, only that he would preserve it. We are told neither the method nor the extent of this preservation."

Dr. Combs asks on Page 32 under the heading of THE EXTENT OF PRESERVATION the question of "How pure have the original words of the biblical writings been preserved?" Combs’ answer is that "It is an indisputable fact, proven by the manuscript and versional evidence, that God has not perfectly (that is, without error) preserved the Scriptures throughout their long history of transmission. There is no single manuscript, printed text, or version that can be shown to be error free. This is patently obvious to anyone who is at all familiar with the transmission history of the Scriptures. First, we should note that no two Greek manuscripts of the New Testament agree exactly; these thousands of manuscripts all differ from one another to some degree. No one has ever suggested, even within the KJV/TR camp, that a particular one of these manuscripts is a perfect copy of the autographs—that it is error free. This conclusively demonstrates that God has permitted errors to enter the transmission process, which is the inevitable result of providential preservation. So clearly, at least for 1500 years, once the autographs had perished and before the age of printing, no one had access to an error-free Bible." (Emphasis added). A real comfort to a dying man!

Then on page 37 William Combs somewhat wraps up his discussion of preservation by saying "The true situation is this: God has preserved his Word to this day, but because of the means he has chosen to use to accomplish this preservation— providentially, through secondary causation—the words of the autographs have not been inerrantly preserved. Instead, God has chosen to allow for variations to occur—variants within the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek copies of the autographs. God has providentially provided all these copies in order to preserve the Scriptures. So it is proper to say that preservation has taken place in the totality of manuscripts. Because God chose this method of preservation, it was not possible to provide a perfectly pure text with no variations (errors). It was sufficient for God’s purpose to preserve his Word in copies of the autographs whose exact wording contains some variation. This level of purity is sufficient for God’s purposes."

Now William Combs of Detroit Baptist Seminary says he and the Seminary believe in the inspiration of the original autographs and "That God has preserved the Scriptures in the totality of the manuscript tradition has traditionally been the position of most evangelicals and fundamentalists on the subject of preservation." Page11 THE PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE by of William Combs. But do they?

Bob Jones University says much the same in that "God in His providence has preserved for us the original reading through the large number of manuscripts in existence that witness to the text of the New Testament." But do they?

John Burgon asks two questions on pages 16 and 17 of THE TRADITIONAL TEXT OF THE HOLY GOSPELS Volume I pertinent to what BJU and Detroit Baptist Seminary say they believe. He asks "Does the truth of the Text of Scripture dwell with the vast multitude of copies, uncial and cursive, concerning which nothing is more remarkable than the marvelous agreement which subsists between them? Or is it rather to be supposed that the truth abides exclusively with a very little handful of manuscripts, which at once differ from the great bulk of witnesses, and-strange to say-also among themselves?" If this is true what Burgon is saying, which it is, you would think BJU and Detroit Baptist Seminary would be on the side of the vast multitude! However, this is not the case! Why?

According to Dr. Waite in his book DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE page 53 "As of 1967, the Greek manuscripts which have survived numbered 5,222. Kurt Aland...has copies of many manuscripts, most of them in microfilm, (about 90% of the total available, according to one source)." However, Dr. Waite says that "every time Aland comes to a manuscript that goes along with the Received Text, he disregards and says it is just a copy of some other text and is not to be counted as a separate witness or as valuable." He then says "Therefore, the number of texts that agree with are not 500, 1,000, or over 5,000, but just one witness." This is all because Aland and others such as those at Bob Jones University and Detroit Baptist Seminary follow W & H’s naturalist principles and procedures.

Let us consider the evidence further. On page 57 Dr. Waite in DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE gives a chart of the total of manuscripts that agree with the W & H text and the Textus Receptus. Again Dr. Waite states there are a total of 5,255. Of those 5,255 only 45 agree with W & H but 5,210 agree with the Textus Receptus. That is 1% to 99%. Ninety Nine percent!

How can Detroit Baptist Seminary say they believe "God has preserved the Scriptures in the totality of the manuscript tradition"? How can Bob Jones University say "God in His providence has preserved for us the original reading through the large number of manuscripts in existence that witness to the text of the New Testament."? They can and do say it because they count the evidence for the Textus Receptus as W & H did, merely as one. In spite of W & H’s rules, principles and procedures for textual criticism, which BJU and Detroit Baptist Seminary follow, John Burgon says the Traditional Text "cannot be vanquished by theories grounded upon internal considerations-often only another name for personal tastes-, or for scholarly likes or dislikes, or upon fictitious recensions, or upon any arbitrary choice of favourite manuscripts, or upon a strained division of authorities into families and groups, or upon a warped application of the principle of genealogy."

John Burgon says on page 12 of THE TRADITIONAL TEXT OF THE HOLY GOSPELS Volume I that he is "utterly disinclined to believe-so grossly improbable does it seem-that at the end of 1800 years 995 copies out of every thousand suppose, will prove untrustworthy; and that the one, two, three, four or five which remain, whose contents were till yesterday as good as unknown, will be found to have retained the secret of what the Holy Spirit originally inspired."

At least Detroit Baptist Seminary is honest in that they have abandoned the King James Bible for an English Version that is a product of the Critical Greek Text and rightfully so they should! On the other hand Bob Jones University continues to use the King James Bible in the class room but the Critical Greek Text in their Greek department. Bob Jones University is not honest. They should do as Detroit Baptist Seminary and abandon the King James Bible for the New American Standard Version or the New International Version that is supported by the Greek text used in their Greek department. Does Bob Jones University hesitate doing this because they may lose the support of some pastors and churches?