Some defenders of the critical Greek text today are trying to equate the “textual criticism” used in the 16th and 17th centuries to that used by textual critics today.

ANSWER:

1. WHILE ERASMUS AND THE OTHER REFORMATION ERA GREEK EDITORS DID USE PRINCIPLES FOR DECIDING THE TEXT, THEY MOST DECIDEDLY DID NOT USE ANYTHING LIKE THE PRINCIPLES OF MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

To defend the use of modern textual criticism with the claim that the Reformation editors also used textual criticism is to compare apples with oranges and is to deal in half truths that hide the heart of the issue.

Edward F. Hills, who had a doctorate in modern textual criticism from Harvard, distinguishes between Reformation criticism and Modern criticism by describing the former as “believing” and the latter as “naturalistic.” In The King James Version Defended, which was first published in 1956, and Believing Bible Study (1967), Hills made this important distinction. Note the following statement:

“The New Testament textual criticism of the man who believes the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures to be true ought to differ from that of the man who does not so believe. The man who regards these doctrines as merely the mistaken beliefs of the Christian church is consistent if he gives them only a minor place in his treatment of the New Testament text, a place so minor as to leave his New Testament textual criticism essentially the same as that of any other ancient book. But the man who holds these doctrines to be true is inconsistent unless he gives them a prominent place to his treatment of the New Testament text, a place so prominent as to make his New Testament textual criticism different from that of other ancient books, for if these doctrines are true, they demand such a place.

“Thus 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 criticism. For more than a century most of them have been quite content to following 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” (Hills, The King James Version Defended, 4th edition, p. 3).

Zane Hodges observed the same thing in 1971:

“Modern textual criticism is psychologically ‘addicted’ to Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort, in turn, were rationalists in their approach to the textual problem in the New Testament and employed techniques within which rationalism and every other kind of bias are free to operate. The result of it all is a methodological quagmire where objective controls on the conclusions of critics are nearly nonexistent. It goes without saying that no Bible-believing Christian who is willing to extend the implications of his faith to textual matters can have the slightest grounds for confidence in contemporary critical texts” (emphasis added) (Zane C. Hodges, “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra, January 1971, p. 35).

Thus we must make a great distinction between the principles used by the Reformation editors and that used by the modern textual critics.

2. THIS ARGUMENT WHICH ATTEMPTS TO EQUATE THE TEXTUAL PRINCIPLES OF THE REFORMATION TO THOSE OF THE MODERN ERA IS A NEW ONE THAT DID NOT APPEAR PRIOR TO LAST COUPLE OF DECADES.

Westcott & Hort themselves said that Erasmus merely published the text commonly held as Received “without selection or deliberate criticism”; and they said further that the choices of the 16th century editors were “arbitrary and uncritical” (Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek).

The theories of modern textual criticism were not developed until the late 18th and the 19th centuries and they are rationalistic. I have at least 40 textbooks on this subject in my library, and the modern textual critics themselves trace the history of their discipline back only that far. From their inception the principles of modern textual criticism were put forth as something new and as something different from and vastly superior to the “simplistic, fideistic” [faith] principles that had been used in prior centuries.

One cannot now honestly claim that the principles of modern textual criticism were not revolutionary and try to equate them with those used in the Reformation.

3. THE PRINCIPLES USED BY THE REFORMATION EDITORS WERE, IN FACT, QUITE THE OPPOSITE OF THOSE UNDERLYING MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

Consider some of the foundational principles employed in the Reformation era:

Reformation Textual Principle #1: Divine Inspiration and Preservation of the Scripture

Reformation editors by and large believed that God had infallibly inspired and providentially preserved the Scriptures and that this preservation was represented in the testimony of the majority of the extant Greek and Latin manuscripts and not by curious manuscripts such as Vaticanus.

“There were three ways in which the editors of the Textus Receptus, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs, were providentially guided. In the first place, they were guided by the manuscripts which God in His providence had made available to them. In the second place, they were guided by the providential circumstances in which they found themselves. Then in the third place, and most of all, they were guided by the common faith. Long before the Protestant Reformation, the God-guided usage of the Church had produced throughout Western Christendom a common faith concerning the New Testament text, namely, a general belief 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 this common faith that guided Erasmus and the other early editors of the Textus Receptus” (Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 4th edition, p. 193).

The evidence of this faith is found in the great doctrinal statements of the Reformation era, whether of Protestant or Baptist. They all stated that the Scriptures were infallibly inspired and divinely preserved, and they believed, further, that the preserved Scripture was to be found in the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek Received New Testament.

Consider two examples:

The testimony of the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1648, which was repeated in the London Baptist Confession of 1677 and the Philadelphia Confession of 1742. “The Old Testament in Hebrew . . . and the New Testament in Greek . . . being immediately inspired by God, and BY HIS SINGULAR CARE AND PROVIDENCE KEPT PURE IN ALL AGES, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.”

The testimony of the Protestant [Baptist] Confession of Faith, London, 1679: “And by the holy scriptures we understand, the canonical books of the old and new testament, as they are now translated into our English mother-tongue, of which there hath never been any doubt of their verity and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day.”

Even the modern textual critics admit this:

“It is UNDISPUTED that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed … [the Greek] Received Text … they regarded it as the ‘original text.’ … IT WAS REGARDED AS PRESERVING EVEN TO THE LAST DETAIL THE INSPIRED AND INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD HIMSELF” (Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 2nd edition, 1987).

The term Textus Receptus in Latin (“Received Text” in English) that was printed in some editions of the Greek New Testament in the 16th century was not merely an advertising blurb, as has been falsely claimed by modern version defenders. It was a statement of the faith of God’s people before the advent of modern textual criticism, that the text commonly passed down through the centuries, the text commonly used in the churches, was the text that was printed in the Greek Received Text and is the Holy Spirit inspired text of the prophets and apostles.

Erasmus and the other Reformation editors possessed readings from the Vaticanus and they had access to similar manuscripts, but they rejected these in favor of the majority text. As Frederick Nolan says: “With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable that he [Erasmus] was acquainted with every variety which is known to us; HAVING DISTRIBUTED THEM INTO TWO PRINCIPAL CLASSES, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition [corresponding to the Received Text], and the other with the Vatican manuscript [corresponding to the modern critical text]” (Nolan, Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament, London, 1815).

Reformation Textual Principle #2: The Preserved Text will be found in the Greek and Latin texts commonly used through the centuries.

“His [Erasmus’] WHOLE DEPENDENCE WAS RESTED UPON THE GREEK AND LATIN VULGATE; and if we may believe himself, he used some ancient copies of the latter. Of these he made the best use: confronting their testimony, and estimating the internal evidence of the context with the external testimony of the Eastern and Western Churches, he thence ascertained the authentic text of Scripture” (Nolan, Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament, London, 1815).

The Reformation editors gave the most weight to the Greek manuscripts but also valued the Latin manuscripts and versions that had been so widely distributed in the Dark Ages. They believed that some errors had crept into the Latin manuscripts in general, and in these cases they leaned to the Greek. An example of this is “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16. At the same time, in a few cases they believed that the original reading was preserved in the Latin rather than in the majority of Greek manuscripts. A classic example is the Trinitarian statement of 1 John 5:7.

The main point here is that the Reformation editors did not think that the original New Testament text was to be found outside of the mainstream of textual witness that existed in the Greek and Latin (and in ancient translations from these languages, such as the Syriac Peshitta). They did not value strange and isolated manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus.

Reformation Textual Principle #3: Heretics Attacked the New Testament in the Early Centuries

In weighing the manuscripts and textual witnesses, the Reformation editors believed that the manuscripts had been corrupted with theological error in the third and fourth centuries and that the Vaticanus type text was representative of those corruptions.

Nolan says: “One short insinuation which he [Erasmus] has thrown out, sufficiently proves, that his objections to these manuscripts lay more deep; and they do immortal credit to his sagacity. IN THE AGE IN WHICH THE VULGATE WAS FORMED, THE CHURCH, HE WAS AWARE, WAS INFESTED WITH ORIGENISTS AND ARIANS; AN AFFINITY BETWEEN ANY MANUSCRIPT AND THAT VERSION, CONSEQUENTLY CONVEYED SOME SUSPICION THAT ITS TEXT WAS CORRUPTED. So little dependence was he inclined to place upon the authority of Origen, who is the pillar and ground of the Corrected edition [the Greek text favored by modern textual critics].”

Reformation Textual Principle #4: Manuscript Readings supporting the Deity of Christ and the Trinity are authentic as opposed to those that weaken these doctrines, because it was these very doctrines that were so viciously attacked in the early centuries.

This principle is closely aligned with that of #3 above. For example, based on this general principle Theodore Beza defended the “longer ending” of Mark’s Gospel, “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16, and the Trinitarian statement of 1 John 5:7.

“In his notes Beza defended the readings of his text which he deemed doctrinally important. For example, he upheld the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 against the adverse testimony of Jerome. ... And in 1 Tim. 3:16 Beza defends the reading God was manifest in the flesh. ‘The concept itself,’ he declares, ‘demands that we receive this as referring to the very person of Christ.’ And concerning 1 John 5:7 Beza says, ‘It seems to me that this clause ought by all means to be retained’” (Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 206).

In contrast to the principles of the Reformation editors and translators, consider some of the foundational principles of modern textual criticism, from Johann Griesbach in the early 19th century to Westcott and Hort in the late 19th century to Kirsopp Lake and Frederic Kenyon in the early 20th century to Bruce Metzger and Kurt Aland in the late 20th century.

Modern Textual Criticism Principle #1: The Bible has become corrupted through the centuries and must be recovered through principles of textual criticism. Constantine Tischendorf said, “[We are in] the struggle to REGAIN the original form of the New Testament.”

This principle is directly opposed to the Reformation principle that the Scripture has been divinely preserved, to quote the Westminster Confession, “by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages.”

Modern Textual Criticism Principle #2: Oldest is best and the Vaticanus codex is the best of all. “B [Vaticanus] far exceeds all other documents in neutrality of text. ... It is our belief (1) that the readings of Aleph B [Sinaiticus and Vaticanus] should be accepted as the true readings until strong internal evidence is found to the contrary, and (2) that no readings of Aleph B can safely be rejected absolutely...The fullest comparison does but increase the conviction that their preeminent relative purity is likewise approximately absolute, a true approximate reproduction of the text of the autographs” (Westcott and Hort, 1881). Using the same principle, Tischendorf preferred the Sinaiticus codex to that of the Vaticanus.

This is directly opposed to the Reformation principle, which held that old manuscripts dating back to the 3rd century are highly suspect and even more so if they come from Egypt as the Alexandrian manuscripts do. Erasmus and the Reformation editors rejected the Vaticanus manuscript and ones similar to it.

Modern Textual Criticism Principle #3: The Traditional Text that has come down through the centuries and that was printed in the 16th century is a corrupt text; the true text was laid aside in the 4th century and not recovered until the late 19th. This is Hort’s principle of a Lucian Recension. “Nearly all text critics assume that between 250 and 350 A.D. there was a revision of the Greek text which produced the traditional text” (A.H. McNeile, An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, p. 428).

According to this foundation principle of modern textual criticism the “original” text of Scripture was laid aside for some 1,500 years! Again, this principle is directly opposed the Reformation principle of divine preservation, that the text commonly used in the Greek and Latin was the preserved text.

Modern Textual Criticism Principle #4: When attempting to recover the original text of Scripture, one must treat the Bible like any other book; the same principles that apply to books in general apply to the Bible. “The principles of criticism explained in the foregoing section hold good for all ancient texts preserved in a plurality of documents. In dealing with the text of the New Testament no new principle whatever is needed or legitimate” (Westcott and Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek, 1881).

This principle is directly opposed to the Reformation principle that the Scripture is divinely inspired and that it is unique among books and that its transmission was subject to phenomena to which other books are not subject (i.e., God’s providential preservation, the attack of the devil, and willful corruption by false teachers).

Modern Textual Criticism Principle #5: The Scripture manuscripts were not subject to willful manipulation by scribes; the mistakes were of a general sort that are common to the transcription of all books. This was a foundational principle of Westcott and Hort. “It will not be out of place, to add here a distinct expression of our belief that even among the numerous unquestionably spurious readings of the New Testament there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes” (Westcott and Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek, 1881).

This principle is directly opposed to the Reformation principle that in looking at the manuscript evidence one must take into account the direct and vicious doctrinal assault that the manuscripts endured in the 2nd to the 4th centuries.

Modern Textual Criticism Principle #6: Textual readings favoring doctrinal orthodoxy are suspect. “When there are many variant readings in one place, that reading which more than the others manifestly favors the dogmas of the orthodox is deservedly regarded as suspicious” (J.J. Griesbach, Novum Testamentum, Graece, 2nd edition, 1809, vol. 1, pp. 75-82, cited from E.F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 4th edition, p. 65). (Westcott and Hort said they venerated the name of Griesbach “above that of every other textual critic.” They adopted many of his principles of textual criticism and popularized them in their writings.)

This principle of modern textual criticism is diametrically opposed to the one used by the Reformation editors, such as Beza, who accepted “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16, even though it is not found in most Latin manuscripts, and the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7, even though it is not found in most Greek manuscripts, on the basis of doctrinal orthodoxy. A Bible-believing textual principle would teach us that when the devil attacks the Scriptures he attempts to weaken key doctrines, and this is exactly what we find in the small Alexandrian family of manuscripts that stem from that hotbed of theological heresy, Egypt.

The fact that textual critics since Westcott and Hort have modified some of these principles (see Wilbur Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text) does not change the fact that these are important foundational principles of modern textual criticism. They are principles that created the Tischendorf and the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testaments, and those are the two texts that were incorporated into the Nestle’s text and from there folded into the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament.

These foundational principles of modern textual criticism are diametrically opposed to the principles that were foundational to the Reformation editors. As Dr. Edward F. Hills demonstrated in his books, the modern principles themselves, which he was taught at the University of Chicago and at Harvard, are rationalistic (even when held by true believers) because they fly in the face of the Bible’s own testimony of its inspiration and preservation.

It is thus wrong and illogical to compare the principles of textual “criticism” used by the Reformation editors to those used by the modern textual critics.