WALKING BY FAITH
OR
WALKING BY SIGHT?

Missionary David C. Bennett, D. Min.
January, 2005

The Christian faith is exactly that, faith. The Word of God in 2 Corinthians 5: 7 says “(For we walk by faith, not by sight :).” Our Christian walk on this side of heaven is entirely by faith, faith in Him and in His Word. In Romans 1:17 we read “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.” Also in Romans 10: 17 we read “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” The faith we have in the person and saving work of Jesus Christ is known personally through our hearing and accepting God’s Words in His Word.

Since 1881 a difficulty has arisen that affects all believers. That is, how do we who speak the English language know we have the Words and Word of God when there are literally hundred’s of English Bible versions all differing from each other? For instance Dr. Jack Moorman in MODERN BIBLES-THE DARK SECRET page three under the heading KEY PASSAGES MISSING says “The New International Version which we have used as a representative has somewhat fewer omissions than, for example, the New American Standard, Revised Standard, New English, Good News, etc.” One could come to a conclusion that because these new versions of the English Bible all differ from one another there continues to be a need for yet another new version in the hope we will someday have a perfect English Bible. Or could all this be based on money? I am just speculating. Whatever, the reason for all these new versions and since all these new versions differ from each other is it too much to ask “Are they all the Word of God in English?” 

The following is a statement made in November 1996 by Detroit Baptist Seminary concerning their belief on inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures. For fairness and to escape any accusation of taking something out of context the whole statement is given. Emphasis has been added by this author.  

“INSPIRATION AND PRESERVATION"

Statement

The Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary recognizes the multiplicity of translations and versions of the Word of God in many languages and dialects. We hold that inspiration is a direct miracle of God by which human authors and human languages were employed by God to give human beings His revelation in written form (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:21). It is the original text (words, script, autograph-graphe, 2 Tim 3:16) that partakes of inspiration proper. All other texts, copies, reproductions, translations, and versions partake of inspiration in an indirect, linear fashion from previous copies and translations to the extent that they reproduce the text of the original manuscripts. We hold that only the autographs of Scripture are inerrant and that copies and translations of Scripture are inerrant insofar as they are true to the inerrant autographs. Thus any translation or version of Scripture in any language is the Word of God if it accurately reproduces what is in the original manuscripts.

We do not hold that the Word of God is to be found exclusively in one English translation or any one translation in any other language since all such have mistranslations, miscopying, or misprinting, however minor, and are not therefore inerrant. On the other hand, 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.

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.

We acknowledge the right of all Christians to study the manuscript evidence regarding the text of Scripture and to come to a preference for a text, text type, translation, or version. We do not grant the legitimacy of regarding one text, text type, or translation as the very Word of God to the exclusion of all others.

In light of the considerable discussion and controversy among fundamentalists about versions, translation theories, manuscripts, texts, and text types, we hold that no particular beliefs about the best textual and translation theories should be elevated to the place of core fundamentalist beliefs or articles of distinctively fundamentalist faith. That is, fundamentalists may hold the doctrine of the verbal inspiration/inerrancy of Scripture with equal strength without embracing common beliefs about text-critical matters and philosophies or theories of translation.”

The above statement by Detroit Baptist Seminary invokes much to which several papers could and perhaps should be written. However, I want us to note the fact that we do not have those original text (words), autograph-graphe, original manuscripts, inerrant autographs, or autographs that Detroit Baptist Seminary speaks of in their statement and they know that. But we do have as Detroit Baptist Seminary says many “manuscripts, fragments, versions, translations, and copies of the Scriptures.”

WHERE ARE THE ORIGINAL NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS

AND WHY DID GOD ALLOW FOR THEM TO DISAPPEAR FROM OUR VIEW?

Was God not thinking when He did not preserve for us those original New Testament writings? The above statement would not have had to be written if the original New Testament writings were in our possession today, or would it?  

Consider for a moment Deuteronomy 34: 1-6 where God’s Word says “And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto the mountain of Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. And the LORD shewed him all the land of Gilead, unto Dan, And all Naphtali, and the land of Ephraim, and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah, unto the utmost sea, And the south, and the plain of the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees, unto Zoar. And the LORD said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither. So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.”

Why did God bury Moses and not tell Israel of the burial sight? I believe the answer is in 2 Kings 18:4 where God’s Word says “He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.” I believe, at least one reason God alone knows where He buried Moses was so Israel would not worship his place of burial as they did the brazen serpent! 

Just as no man knows the burial site of Moses but God, no man knows the location of the original manuscripts, but God! God did not lose the original New Testament manuscripts but has either placed them where no man can find them or He allowed them to be used by His immersionist churches to such a degree that they were ultimately worn to pieces. However they came to disappear from man’s view, God superintended their disappearance and they are not available today for us to use or worship! 

Now many churches and organizations such as Detroit Baptist Seminary in their doctrinal statement say; “We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testament canon, which, being inerrant in the original manuscripts, is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice and any other subject on which it touches.”

Again Detroit Baptist Seminary speaks of those “original manuscripts.” The originals were written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Now, as I said before we do not have those originals either of the Old or New Testament, so where do we find the Word and Words of God today? The authenticity of the Old Testament has not been queried quiet as much as the New Testament. Most Bible believing pastors and scholars have until recently accepted the Masoretic Hebrew Text for the Old Testament. This text is the foundation for the Old Testament as found in the King James Bible. Dr. D. A. Waite adds that the Masoretic Hebrew Text underlying the King James Bible is the “Daniel Bomberg edition, edited by Ben Cayyim—the 2nd Rabbinic Bible of 1524-25.” (Emphasis in the book) DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE page 35.

Dr. Thomas Strouse in his book THE LORD GOD HATH SPOKEN page 16 says “The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament derives its name from the Masoretic Scribes (AD 6 -10th centuries) who added vowel pointings to the tri-consonantal apographa. Their efforts helped standardize the OT Hebrew text from which the ancient, medieval, and Reformation versions were translated.” Dr. Strouse goes on to say on page 16 “That the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew OT is the standard received and traditional text of the OT should be apparent.”  

When it comes to the New Testament there was a Greek text that was unanimously accepted and used by the Lord’s immersionist churches until the nineteenth century. Some within Christendom had sought to dethrone this accepted Greek Text earlier but it was not until 1881 that it was accomplished. B. F. Westcott and F. J. Hort (W& H) compiled what has become known as the Critical Greek Text. This Greek Text is based primarily on two Greek manuscripts, Aleph and B.  In Appendix E of his book The King James Version Debate, D.A. Carson says that “Westcott/Hort defined a ‘neutral’ text outside of the Alexandrian type which consisted of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. This was their preferred text in determining which variant to use. Both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are now considered to be part of the Alexandrian Text type.” (Emphasis added).

It is this Critical Greek Text that is accepted today by liberals, evangelicals, and new evangelicals and sad to say a growing number of fundamentalists. As Burton L. Goddard wrote on page 49 of THE MAKING OF A CONTEMPORARY TRANSLATION that “…while conservative and liberal scholars disagree on many subjects of biblical concern, they find large agreement as to the original text of the New Testament.” That text of which they agree is the Critical Greek Text.

Sir Frederick Kenyon, late Director and Principal Librarian of the British Museum, says on page 165 in THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE that W & H’s favourite Greek manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, are the “...two outstanding authorities, earlier in date than any previously known, and supporting one another in evidence for a text markedly different from the received Byzantine text, that gave the impulse for a revision BOTH OF THE GREEK TEXT IN COMMON USE AND OF THE ENGLISH VERSION.” (Emphasis added).

It is important to note that Kenyon said there was a Greek text in existence before 1881 and the appearance of W & H’s Critical Greek Text. This Greek Text Kenyon called “the received Byzantine text” and “Greek text in common use”. This was the Greek Text that Kenyon says was “markedly different” from the Critical Greek Text! 

Kenyon was certainly correct when he said this Greek text that existed prior to 1881 was “markedly different”! As Dr. D. A. Waite says in his book FUNDAMENTALIST MIS-INFORMATION ON BIBLE VERSIONS on page 72 there are “...5,604 places where the Westcott and Hort changed the Textus Recptus. According to the footnotes of Dr. Scrivener, there are 9,970 Greek words that have been either added, subtracted, or changed in some other way. If you wrote all those 9,970 Greek words in consecutive pages, you would have 45.9 pages of differences.” (Emphasis in the book).

This difference is reproduced in the translations made from that Greek text. One example is the title of our Saviour as the “Lord Jesus Christ.” In the King James Bible this title appears 85 times in 82 verses (by my count but Dr. Jack Moorman in MODERN BIBLES-DARK SECRETS page 14 says 84 times in 81 verses). In the American Standard Version this full title, Lord Jesus Christ, appears 61 times. This means the full title, Lord Jesus Christ, is missing 24 times in the ASV compared to the King James Bible. Dr. Moorman says on page 14 of MODERN BIBLES-DARK SECRETS that the full title Lord Jesus Christ appears “...60 times in 60 verses in the NIV, 62 times in 62 verses in the NRSV, and 63 times in 63 verses in the RSV.” (Emphasis is in the book.). Dr. Moorman in the aforementioned book also says on page 25 that “In the New Testament the modern version text is shorter than that of the King James Version by about the number of words in 1 and 2 Peter.” That is quite a difference and it is all due to the “markedly different” Greek text used.

Dr. Kenneth I. Brown in the Preface of A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE TEXT OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE says that “No issue today holds greater significance of a permanent nature than that of the Greek text from which all translations are made.” I am in total agreement with Dr. Brown on this but disagree with him on his choice of what Greek text should be used for translating. Dr. Brown continues on the same page saying that the Textus Receptus was the basis for “...all Protestant translations prior to 1881.” (Emphasis added.) Note the word “all.” Why did those before 1881 use only the Textus Receptus? Is it because this text goes all the way back to the originals? It is this Greek Text that underlies our King James Bible. Dr. D. A. Waite in FUNDAMENTALIST MIS-INFORMATION ON BIBLE VERSIONS says on page 67 that “...the Textus Receptus is a Greek text that was found in manuscripts handed down from Apostolic times in what has been called the Traditional Text.”           

Hence, in 1881 we have the appearance of another Greek text that Kenyon calls “a text markedly different” from the one underlying the Authorized Version. Now, did the Lord’s immersionist churches before 1881 have the words of God in the “Greek text in common use” or was it a corrupted text? 

It is worth mentioning here that the corrupters of the New Testament texts were alive and well not long after the originals saw the light of day. On pages 10 and 11 of THE TRADITIONAL TEXT Edward Miller, who edited the book after Dean John Burgon’s death, says “No sooner was the work of the Evangelists and Apostles recognized as the necessary counterpart and complement of God’s ancient Scriptures and became the ‘New Testament,’ than a reception was found to be awaiting it in the world closely resembling that which He experienced Who is the subject of its pages. Calumny and misrepresentation, persecution and murderous hate, assailed Him continually. And the Written Word in like manner, in the earliest age of all, was shamefully handled by mankind. Not only was it confused through human infirmity and misapprehension, but it became also the object of restless malice and unsparing assaults. Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, Heracleon, Menander, Asclepiades, Theodotus, Hermophilus, Appollonides, and other heretics, adapted the Gospels to their own ideas. Tatian, and later on Ammonius, created confusion through attempts to combine the four Gospels either in a diatessaron or upon an intricate arrangement made by sections, under which as a further result the words of one Gospel became assimilated to those of another. Want of familiarity with the sacred words in the first ages, carelessness of scribes, incompetent teaching, and ignorance of Greek in the West, led to further corruption of the Sacred Text. Then out of the fact that there existed a vast number of corrupt copies arose at once the need of Recension, which was carried on by Origen and his school. This was a fatal necessity to have made itself in an age when the first principles of the Science were understood; for ‘to correct’ was too often in those days another word for ‘to corrupt.’” 

It is therefore correct to say the Lord’s immersionist churches in its early days had the original manuscripts written by “holy men of God ...as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” but not soon after appeared Greek manuscripts corrupted by the hand of man. Now the question arises “Was the ‘Greek text in common use’ as Kenyon calls it, copied from corrupt copies or was the nineteenth century W & H Critical Greek Text based on corrupt copies?”

As declared earlier, in 1881 there was to emerge two “markedly different” Greek texts. The one is what Kenyon calls the “Greek text in common use” and the other is the Critical Greek Text of W & H, 1881. ONE WOULD HAVE TO ASSUME FROM MANY TODAY, LIBERALS, NEW EVANGELICALS AND SOME FUNDAMENTALISTS THAT THE LORD’S IMMERSIONIST CHURCHES WERE USING AN INFERIOR GREEK TEXT UNTIL 1881. BUT IS THAT TRUE? What is the manuscript evidence?

Dr. Kenneth I Brown says in the Preface of the book quoted earlier that “The ‘Critical Text’ incorporates materials from thousands of manuscripts discovered and studied since the time of Erasmus.” Is this true? Does the Critical Text incorporate material from thousands of manuscripts? No, IT IS NOT TRUE. Kenyon who was certainly not an ally of the Received Text says that Hort pinned “his faith to B.” Page 168 THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE.

Another thing that Dr. Brown said is that Erasmus’ Greek text is the Textus Recptus that underlies the King James Bible. Is that correct?

Dr. Waite on page 40 of DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE says “This Textus Receptus that underlies the KING JAMES BIBLE New Testament, was basically Beza’s 5th edition of 1598. Dr. Frederick H. A. Scrivener, in his NEW TESTAMENT IN GREEK ACCORDING TO THE TEXT FOLLOWED IN THE AUTHORIZED VERSION TOGETHER WITH THE VARIATIONS ADOPED IN THE REVISED VERSION OF 1881 LISTS ABOUT 190 PLACES WHERE THE KJB editors departed from Beza’s 5th edition in favor of eight other sources...” (Emphasis is in the book.) Dr. Waite then goes on to say that “This Greek text is the exact text which underlies the KING JAMES BIBLE. It is a text that hasn’t changed. It hasn’t had a revision in the last 381 years.” (Emphasis is in the book.)

Continuing on this same issue I quote Sir Frederick Kenyon when he writes in THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE pages 197, 198 that the Textus Receptus’ “earliest representatives (in the Gospels) is Codex A.” Kenyon calls this the a Text and that this “...is the text found in the great majority of manuscripts, entrenched in print by Erasmus and Stephanus, and known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text, as opposed to the critical editions of modern times.” (Emphasis added) 

It is well known that W & H had nothing but detest for the Received Text . Because of their  loathing for the Received Text Kenyon says the a text was therefore placed by Hort as “...an essentially secondary text, based upon a process of revision in minor details which began about the end of the fourth century and continued for several centuries, affecting the descendants of all earlier groups to  varying extents, and finally dominating the Byzantine Church until the invention of printing, when it became the Received Text of the whole Church until the rise of modern criticism under the influence of the discoveries and research of the last century.” pages 243, 244 THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE.

Now just because W & H and a few others had abhorrence for the Textus Receptus, which by the way is based on the majority of manuscript evidence, they (W & H) discarded the many for the few. There are today over five thousand Greek manuscripts of the New Testament available. In DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE on page 57 Dr. D. A. Waite has a chart showing that the manuscript evidence is not in favour of the Critical Greek Text but is overwhelmingly in favour of the Greek text underlying the King James Bible or as Kenyon stated that “Greek Text in common use” before 1881!

In THE TRADITIONAL TEXT page 12 Miller says “...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 GOOD AS UNKNOWN, will be found to have retained the secret of what the Holy Spirit originally inspired.” (Emphasis added.)

Yet, this is what has happened. Today there are a multitude of English versions based on the Critical Greek Text, with each version reading differently from the other. The liberals, modernists, and new evangelicals we can understand recommending these versions based on a Greek text based on a few old disused manuscripts but not the fundamentalist!  

Permit me to ask those fundamental brethren who align themselves with the liberals and new evangelicals against the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible some questions. Firstly, should we who believe in and hold to the authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures not desire to have in our English language a Bible that is based on the inspired Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words of God? Secondly, are those inspired words for the New Testament found in the Greek Text which was in common use before 1881 or are those inspired words found in that Greek Text that did not see the light of day until 1881 under the guidance of W & H? 

Dr. Brown in the book quoted earlier , said in the preface that “The points of difference are few in comparison to the size of the New Testament, BUT VITAL AND IMPORTANT WITH REFERENCE TO DOCTRINE OF THE BIBLE.” (Emphasis added). The “points of difference are” not few as noted by Kenyon when he wrote that these two Greek texts are “markedly different.” And as far as doctrine, I agree with Dr. Brown that it is definitely important to have the correct Greek text for it is “vital and important with reference to doctrine of the Bible.” 

Now Dr. Brown undoubtedly believes certain Bible doctrines are affected by the use of the Textus Receptus. He says on pages 1 and 2 of A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE TEXT OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE that “Although no major doctrine hinges on a textual variant, there are important doctrines involved in passages where textual problems occur.” He then gives some examples which are; 1 Cor. 11:24; Luke 2:14; Mark 9: 24; 16: 8, 16; 2 Peter 1:21; and Acts 8: 37.

Therefore, according to Dr. Brown the Lord’s immersionist churches did not have an accurate Bible from which to preach and teach the whole counsel of God and sound doctrine until 1881.

On the other hand according to Dr. D. A. Waite the doctrine of ecclesiology, eschatology, bibliology, Satanology, theology proper, soteriology, and Christology are all affected through the use of the Critical Greek text in translation work.

CONCUSION:

So in summary, we see there are today two sides to the issue of the New Testament Greek Text.

Prior to 1881 the Lord’s immersionist churches accepted the originals as the very inspired Words and Word of God. But they did not have the originals. Therefore by faith the Lord’s immersionist churches accepted that Greek text which was “in common use” as the original Words and Word of God. This Greek text which was “in common use” was the basis for the King James Bible. It could be said the Lord’s immersionist churches prior to 1881 could be likened to those of whom Jesus spoke when He said “blessed are they that have not seen, (the originals) and yet have believed.” John 20:29

Those on the Critical side of the Greek text issue also know the originals are absent from our use today. However, they still do not accept by faith that Greek text which was “in common use” prior to 1881. In fact even after W & H produced their Greek text these people do not know for certain if they have the Word of God or if they will ever have the Word of God. 

Their walk by sight position is stated in various ways but all mean the same thing . We will quote three from the walk by sight side of the Greek text issue. Kenyon states the walk by sight position this way on page 12 of THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE saying that “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.” (Emphasis added). The walk by sight group only hope’s to someday “somewhere” among the 5000 plus manuscripts find the true readings of the New Testament. So they continue their search! 

The walk by sight party’s position is also stated by those who made the New International Version. In THE MAKING OF A CONTEMPORARY TRANSLATION page 73 Ralph Earle says that “with the thousands of Greek manuscripts now at our disposal, we can reach a high degree of certainty with regard TO THE PROBABILITY of the best text.” (Emphasis added). Earle states even further on page 73 the position of the walk by sight crowd when speaking of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation that “We have all sought earnestly TO REPRESENT AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE what SEEMS TO BE, AS NEARLY AS WE CAN DETERMINE, the original text of the New Testament.” (Emphasis added). Seems to be!? 

Then there is Daniel Wallace of Dallas Seminary who admits that he and others of the walk by sight group “…are TRYING TO RECOVER THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BY EXAMINING THE MOST ANCIENT DOCUMENTS WE CAN FIND.” (Emphasis added). Will they ever succeed?    

This walk by sight group that defends the Critical Greek Text is likened to Thomas when he said “…Except I shall see (the originals) …I will not believe.” John 20:25.

In closing this paper, two questions might be asked of this walk by sight group, and the questions are “Would they know the originals if they saw them” and “Would they then by faith accept them as the originals”?