Back to Bible Version ReportsBack
to the Home PageWay
of Life Literature Online Catalog
EXAMINATION OF MODERN NEW TESTAMENT TEXT CRITICISM THEORY AND METHODS
By: Jeffrey A. Young Ph.D. youngdrj@juno.com
October 31, 1995
This document may be reproduced in its entirety free of charge for non-commercial private use only. This document may not be otherwise reproduced in whole or in part without the express written consent of the authors.
CONTENTS
Introduction
I. We Know from God's Word that the Modern Conclusions are False
A. God Establishes His Word
B. The Scriptures Have Not Been Lost
C. No One May Add to or Subtract from God's Word
D. Doctrinal Purity is not Popular in the Last Times
E. Recent Text Critics Have Modified the Apostasy
II. We Know from Their Reasoning that the Modern Theory is False
A. The Major Premise of Westcott and Hort is False
(1) Westcott and Hort's Favorite Manuscripts Bear the Marks of Those Corrupted by Gnostic Adoptionists in the 2nd Century
(2) The Evidence Westcott and Hort Offer is Extremely Weak
(3) Data Speaking Against the Major Premise is Abundant and Powerful
(4) The Beliefs of Westcott and Hort Favor Gnosticism
B. Consequent Assumptions of Westcott and Hort are False Because the Major Premise is False
C. The Text Criticism Method of Westcott and Hort is False Because it is Based on a False Premise and False Implications
D. The Application of the Text Criticism Method is Disastrous
E. Modern Text Critics have Never Answered the Points Raised in this Essay Although the Weighty Arguments Were Cited within Two Years of the Publication of the Text Critical Method
References
INTRODUCTION
There is a cartoon by Larson that shows a physicist addressing a room full of farmers at a dairy convention. The physicist is saying "assume a spherical cow." This situation bears a striking resemblance to the present controversy over which Greek text should be used for New Testament translation into English (text criticism). The physicist represents Westcott and Hort, two text critics who published a revolutionary text of the New Testament in 1881. Their methods of criticism are wholeheartedly accepted by most liberal text critics today, and their Greek text has been largely used for virtually all modern English translations (including NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB, CEV, TEV, GNB, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, & NEW CENTURY). The farmers are the Christians who need to buy Bibles to study God's Word.
As with any other theory harbored by hopelessly impractical academics, they over-simplify the problem. Forming conclusions under their unrealistic assumptions is much easier than really considering the pertinent evidence. They make too much of their own authority, and forbid laymen to weigh the conclusions and evidence and form their own opinion. As usual, the academics do everything they can to complicate matters by multiplication of terminology, confusion of fact with inference, and confusing repetition of an assertion for supplying proof.
Their conclusions are much more destructive than most eccentric scholarly theories. The motivation for the conclusions in both the case of Westcott & Hort, and the modern liberal text critics is apostasy (though the nature of the apostasy is different in the two cases). They reject what God's word says about it's origin and preservation, so they comb the text evidence to find a footing for their rejection of what it teaches. In this way they use the data at their disposal to discredit God's word. Their false beliefs have a very real impact on the words that are included in the modern translations. All modern English Translations use a Greek text that changes or casts doubt on about one word in twenty of New Testament Scripture. These changes reflect false doctrines held by early (2nd century) devil-worshipping heretics. If you want to avoid the modern butchers, you must use the King James Version. No other modern translation, to my knowledge, completely avoids the modern error. The assumptions of the modern Greek New Testament Text Critics do not represent an approximation to the actual evidence, but a negation of the actual evidence. The dark secret they protect is that the scant evidence they offer does not support their claims.
The purpose of this report is to show briefly, but accurately that the conclusions of the moderns contradict scripture (part I), and that the basis of their conclusions is blind hope in the face of contrary evidence (part II).
I. WE KNOW FROM GOD'S WORD THAT THE MODERN CONCLUSIONS ARE FALSE.
A. God Establishes His Word.
God's Word:
Through faith in the substitutionary suffering and death of Christ the Holy Ghost enters into the heart (Gal 3:2, Jn 16:14); and He is the Spirit of truth, who teaches men to recognize His Word which He spoke through the Prophets and Apostles (1 Pet 1:10-12) as His Word.
Westcott & Hort Conclusion:
Only scholars properly equipped with training and a thorough knowledge of Greek and the ancient manuscripts are qualified to sit in judgment over God's Word. [2, p. 285] A trained critic may through his superior knowledge know better than all witness that have gone before. [1, p. 421], [2, p. 13 cmpr preface p. viii], [2, p. 17] He knows better than the ancient copyists. [1, p. 420] Without the Holy Ghost or any evidence whatever the trained critic can improve God's Word. [1, p. 426], [1, p. 428], [1, p. 428, 429, 430 where word 'corruption' is used] [2, p. 32]
It is a mistake to think that we sit in judgment over God's Word and may decide which Greek text we wish to accept for our own use (2 Pet . 1:16). It is instead the duty of each Christian to recognize the Word of God, to which we owe our allegiance and most devout attention. God's Word has its own authority (Jn. 10:27-29) and it is foolhardy to think we need to add credibility to His Word with testimonials (Ps. 50:12, Jn 5:41), but rather it is God that delivers us (Ps. 50:15), and preserves scripture (Jn. 10:35, 2 Pet. 1:19, Mt. 5:17-18) by His almighty power (Jn. 5:37-47, Ro. 4:21, Is 46:10-11). He is the author and finisher of our faith, and uses His own methods to keep us (2 Pet 2:9)
B. The Scriptures Have Not Been Lost.
God's Word:
All scripture is God's word. (2 Tim. 3:16). It can never fail (John 10:35, Mt. 5:18, 24:35, Mk. 13:31, Lk. 21:33), but is true (Jn. 17:17). It does not contain fables (2 Pet. 1:16), but scripture is more sure than if God were to speak directly to us from heaven (2 Pet. 1:19). God's Word has never been secret but always openly declared (Isa. 45:18,19). If it is hid, then it is hid to them that are lost and blinded through unbelief (2 Cor. 4:3-4).
Westcott & Hort Conclusion:
They assume that between 250 A.D. and 350 A.D. there was a revision of the Greek text which produced the traditional text. [1, p. 428], [2, p. 92 cmpr p. 94 p. 133] They say this revision caused the original text to be lost. [1, p. 426] [2, preface p. xiv] They say this was a conspiracy which has successfully suppressed the original up to and including the present time. [1, p. 430] [2, p. 150-151]
C. No one May Add to or Subtract from God's Word.
God's Word:
It is a sin to add to or subtract from God's Word (Deut. 12:32, Rev. 22:18-19). We are commanded not to listen to those false prophets who do (Jer. 23:16, 1 John 4:1). Every Christian can recognize them (Mt 7:15-20, Isa. 8:20, 1 Jn. 2:21f, 1 Jn. 2:27). The true God is nothing like false gods, and it is a sin to mix in the teachings of false gods (Ro 1:16-28), or to seek out familiar spirits (Isa. 8:19-20, Lev. 19:31, Lev. 20:6, Deut. 18:11).To reject Gods word is to call Him a liar (1 John 5:10).
Westcott & Hort Conclusion:
All text evidence (including the traditional text) but for a few ancient manuscripts may safely be ignored. [1, p. 429-430], [2, p. 285]. Because these disagree with each other the true text is unknown. [2, p. 150-151] [2, p. 287] We are left with subjective considerations to determine what we may accept as the true text for the present time. [1, p. 430] But these subjective considerations must be those of the most eminent scholars. They may decide for themselves and you must accept their results [1, p.420, 426, 428-430], [2, p. 24]. These scholars never agree however, witnessing to the shortcomings of their personal fetishes. [2, preface p. xi] [2, preface p. xiv] [2, p. 17], [2, p. 32] [2, p. 65] [2, p. 66]. It only remains to doubt that God's Word is knowable. [2, preface p. xiv] People should be grateful to them because of the comparative purity of their texts to the traditional text which went before [1, p. 430] [1, p. 452], and never mind that as a consequence you must abandon hope of finding the 'right' text for the present time. [2, p. 285]
D. Doctrinal Purity is not Popular in the Last Times.
God's Word:
It was foretold repeatedly and urgently that shortly after Paul died grievous wolves would arise within the outward fellowship of Christendom (Acts 20:29-31). That men would reject the truth in favor of fables (2 Tim. 4:4). That they would secretly bring in damnable heresies (2 Pet. 2:1). That many would follow them (2 Pet. 2:1, Luke 17:27).
Westcott & Hort Conclusion:
In these latter times with our superior knowledge and exact science we have advanced far beyond the primitive Christians. In these last times we have a superior belief that has eliminated the fables formerly believed and carried in the traditional text. [1, p. 430, 452]
God's Word:
At the end of the world apostasy would be very popular (Luke 17:26-27). This apostasy would deny miracles and be based on the passions of the false prophets who are willingly ignorant that the word of God is almighty. They don't believe in the second coming of Christ, or fear judgment (2 Pet. 3:1-10).
Westcott & Hort Conclusion:
They say miracles are not real but apparent. [8, p. 32] They say certainty of the text relies on the subjective considerations of the scholar. [1, p. 430] They deny the almighty power of God's Word since they say it has been lost. They deny the person of Satan [8, p. 13], Hell [8, p. 17], and the sudden coming of Christ for judgment [8, p. 17E]
E. Recent Text Critics Have Modified the Apostasy.
Modern text critics accept the method of Westcott and Hort wholeheartedly (see also II D, E). [1, p. 419-420, 430, 452] They change the set of discordant manuscripts worthy of consideration (still eliminating the traditional text). They highly prize the most venerated manuscript invoked by Westcott & Hort. [1, p. 430] They witness against the erroneous nature of Westcott and Hort's theory by contradicting their conclusions. (See section II D) They advance an even greater apostasy (Synoptic Theory) that eclipses the first. They say that since Matthew, Mark and Luke have a common view yet have different details, this is not evidence of independent witnesses, but Matthew, Mark and Luke are an artful fabrication of two original books that are totally unknown at the present time. One of these they designate as Marcan (Mark-like). The other as Q. [1,p.447 and chapter on Synoptic Problem]
II. WE KNOW FROM THEIR REASONING THAT THE MODERN THEORY IS FALSE.
A. The Major Premise of Westcott and Hort is False.
It is impossible to make sense of Westcott and Hort's text theory unless you hold firmly in mind that their most primitive assumption is that the whole church prior to 350 A.D. participated in a conspiracy to suppress the original text. Based on this hidden premise, Westcott and Hort derived principles of text criticism, and then used these principles to prove their major premise, thus closing the loop forming a circle of reasoning that is spread out over 150 pages of presentation. It is wrong to say that they didn't offer any evidence. It is perfectly accurate to say that the evidence they do offer does not establish the thesis they must prove. Their thesis is a historical thesis which contradicts all previous historical conclusions, and yet they didn't offer a single historical observation from the period under consideration to prove it.
This leads us to a paradox. Why, if the major premise of their theory is historical, did they not avail themselves of a single historical fact in it's defense? Two conclusions are possible. First, it could be that Westcott and Hort were wholly ignorant of the history under consideration. Aside from being an absurdity, this hypothesis is much too kind to them, as will be seen shortly. Second, it could be that they knew of it; and were willing to believe their theory correct regardless of how strongly the historical evidence stood against them. This second conclusion is supported in the biography of Westcott by the fact that He wrote Hort saying "On many things when I am in doubt you seem to have clear views, and you generally appear, I think, to have a more solid foundation than I can boast of in a kind of historic optimism." [12, p. 252]
The most important historical fact in the period 150-350 A.D. relative to text criticism is that heretics mutilated some copies of scripture. This mutilation was performed by Adoptionists late in the second century. Adoptionism is a form of gnosticism (the most widespread heresy of the period). This mutilation followed doctrinal lines. Those who performed it claimed to have corrected the text to the apostolic original, and produced "a large number" [4, p. 237] of wildly discordant copies (since later Gnostic copyists didn't hesitate to further mutilate the text they received from their masters). They treated the standard of faith with contempt. Their purpose in changing the words of the manuscript was to escape the judgment of the scriptures very much the same way Jehovah's Witnesses prepared their own translation to fit their own doctrine. Therefore these copies showed wild variation compared to manuscripts of similar date and with the traditional text. [4, p. 235-238]
Conspicuously absent from Westcott and Hort's principles of text criticism is any warning to avoid these mutilated copies. This glaring omission is frequently repeated in the authoritative critique of Westcott and Hort's text critical theory [3]. The reason they fail to warn against depraved texts is not far to seek. The few manuscripts they do not ignore have all been rejected as depraved texts because they bear all the marks of corrupted texts [3, p. 249]. Instead of listing the characteristics of the copies mutilated by the Gnostics, Westcott and Hort warn that it was the practice of orthodox church copyists to mutilate the text by blending discordant manuscripts to form the traditional text.
Where history records a mutilation of some copies of the sacred text by Gnostic heretics Westcott and Hort are silent. Where history records that the true sacred text survived this assault and is preserved in the traditional text, Westcott and Hort counter that the whole church participated in a conspiracy to fabricate a blended (and therefore corrupted) text.
Westcott and Hort must not have believed the traditional Christian church to be genuine, but a sham. This thesis is supported by the biographies of Westcott and Hort. When J. F. D. Maurice was accused of false doctrine, Westcott commented that Orthodox Christians are like a new Islam persecuting a revival of the true Christians. He also said that it was the practice of his party not to be open about their views. [11, p. 229] Westcott said he thought most people in his day didn't know what classical theology is. [11, p. 261] He said that there is a "forgotten truth" that Mariolotry bears witness to. [11, p. 251]. Westcott wrote to Hort and distinguished between the "old Medieval Church" and "the Church" and confessed that he didn't know how they were related historically. [11, p. 285]. Hort responded that the true church has been greatly injured since the Athanasian creed (400 A.D.), and dead since the reformation, and that he believes protestantism to be only parenthetical and temporary. [16, p. 31-33] A year later, and twenty years before publication of the revised Greek text he wrote to Hort "More and more we seem to need to go to the beginning of things. Those who hold the truth seem to hold it irrationally. I can dimly imagine a new way for establishing old beliefs." [11, p. 293-294]
Westcott and Hort must have believed that what historians recorded as a defense against heretics was in reality a suppression of the true church. They believed that what the historians recorded as heretically corrupted texts were closer to the true autographs.
Westcott and Hort did not publicly admit that they thought gnosticism to be genuine Christianity. The private beliefs of Westcott and Hort are not primarily at issue here, but rather the evidence that speaks for and against their major premise. The error of their major premise is demonstrated in that (1) Westcott and Hort's favored texts bear all the marks of Gnostic corruptions compared to the traditional text, (2) the evidence they offer is extremely weak, (3) the data speaking against their major premise is abundant and powerful. Although unnecessary to the refutation of their major premise, the works of Westcott and Hort, and their biographers have clearly shown that (4) the beliefs of Westcott and Hort were biased in favor of Gnosticism.
(1) Westcott and Hort's Favored Manuscripts Bear the Marks of Those Corrupted by Gnostic Adoptionists in the 2nd Century.
There were two manuscripts Westcott and Hort favored most. The first is CODEX B (Vaticanus). The second is ALEPH (Sinaiticus). They called these manuscripts "almost wholly neutral". They deemed the readings of these "strongly preferred," and said they had the "ring of genuineness". It is manifest that these manuscripts bear all the marks of Gnostic corruptions. This is evidenced in that they show (a) deviations along Gnostic doctrinal lines, (b) wild discordance with each other (c) wild discordance with manuscripts of similar age and (d) wild discordance with the traditional text. Since ALEPH and B exhibit the marks of Gnostic corruption, it is clear that these two manuscripts are depraved.
(a) These Manuscripts (ALEPH and B) Show Deviations Along Gnostic Doctrinal Lines.
The changes found in the modern English Bibles are due in large measure to the modification of the Greek text to agree with ALEPH and B. This may be proved by considering some sample section of scripture such as Mark 2:1-12. In these twelve verses Westcott and Hort adopt 23 variations. A variation is a deviation from the traditional text. A variation may be any one of the standard phenomena of text criticism including omitted words, added words, substituted words, transposed words, variation of case, tense, spelling or phrase. Of these 23 variations, in 18 ALEPH and B agree, in 2 ALEPH is unsupported by B, and in 2 B is unsupported by ALEPH [3, p. 16]. The reader may correlate doctrinal changes himself against the following summary of Gnostic doctrine [7, p. 74-79].
Gnosticism may be summed up into three false doctrines to which all others must give way. These three false doctrines are (I) Spiritism: the belief that the supreme God is unknowable and a hierarchical array of intermediary spirits exist the lowest of which is Jehovah (the creator and God of the Jews), (II) Anti-Materialism: the belief that sin resides in matter, and (III) Illuminism: the belief that salvation comes by secret knowledge supplied by intermediate spirits. In essence this system is devil worship because it says the lowest spirit is the creator (Jehovah of the Jews). This not only places all devils and Satan above the true God, but also ascribes to the true God the multiplication of evil by creating the (evil) material world, and robs Jesus of the prophetic office giving it to devils and Satan.
Some examples of how these Gnostic corruptions have crept into the modern versions may be found by comparing the NIV to the KJV. The former uses the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, while the latter follows the traditional Greek text. A comparative study of the first 12 chapters of Luke with a more detailed description of Gnostic false doctrine gives the following evidence of Gnostic corruption.
Those Gnostic false doctrines related to Spiritism are: The Jewish Scriptures are looked on as an inferior revelation, and several extra-biblical accounts of creation are used. The trinity is denied. By substituting a pantheon of devils for the true God, the importance of the true God is minimized. Meanwhile the status of the devils is elevated saying that they dwell in light. The miracles worked by God are diminished because they want to say that the false wonders produced by devils are better. Redemption is the release of the spirit from the prison house of it's (evil) body. [7, p. 74-79]
Spiritism is reflected in the first 12 chapters of Luke (NIV) by those passages that diminish the wickedness of the devils, those that diminish the authority of Christ over the devils, those that diminish the authority of the Father over devils, and those that diminish the opposition of the true God to evil. The wickedness of devils and the authority of Christ over devils are diminished in Luke 4:8 where the NIV deletes the words in CAPS from "And Jesus answered AND SAID UNTO HIM, GET THEE BEHIND ME, SATAN for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord." The authority of the Father over devils is diminished in Luke 11:2 when the Lord's Prayer is butchered denying the fact that the father dwells in heaven and His will is done there. The NIV deletes the words in CAPS "OUR Father WHICH ART IN HEAVEN hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH". This is also shown by turning the kingdom of God in the KJV into just the kingdom in Luke 12:31. The opposition of the true God to evil is diminished when the words "DELIVER US FROM EVIL" are cut out of the Lord's Prayer in the NIV Luke 11:4.
Those Gnostic false doctrines related to Anti-Materialism are: The fall is equated with the creation of matter. The resurrection of the dead is denied. Two different denials of Christ's Divine or human nature. (A) Some say his body was not real, but a phantom. (B) Others say that he was a mere man prior to his baptism, and after Gethsemane (Adoptionism, which amounts to an accusation of demon possession). Both of these deny Christ's real humanity before baptism and during His passion on the cross.
Anti-Materialism is reflected in the first 12 chapters of Luke (NIV) by those passages that reflect Adoptionism. Adoptionism says that Jesus was an ordinary mere man before His baptism, and that He was possessed by the pure spirit Christ who descended on Him at His baptism. The adoptionist influence is revealed by denial of the virgin birth in Luke 2:33 where the KJV has "Joseph" but the NIV has "father" and in Luke 2:43 where the KJV has "Joseph and his mother" and the NIV has "parents". In Luke 9:35 the KJV has God calling Jesus His "beloved Son" but the NIV has "Son, whom I have chosen". The latter is consistent with Adoptionism, while the former is not.
Jesus words in KJV Luke 9:55-56 make Adoptionism impossible "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." The problem this poses to Adoptionism is that Jesus ascribes salvation particularly to His human nature when He says it is the "Son of man" who is come to save. This denies the Adoptionist belief that the Christ is merely a possessing spirit. It also directly denies the Gnostic notion that the mission of the redeemer is to bring about death to free the good spirit from it's evil body. Instead Jesus says here that His mission is to save life. This wholesale rejection of adoptionistic gnosticism is why these words of Jesus were cut out in the ancient corrupt manuscripts, and not included in the NIV.
Those Gnostic false doctrines related to Illuminism are: Man is saved by knowledge not faith, so there is no need for God's Law or repentance. Knowledge is given by the redeemer (implying death). Knowledge is given by any of the intermediary spirits who are above scripture. There are three types of men: those who cannot be saved, those who may or may not be saved, and those who can be sure of their salvation. The knowledge is only given secretly to the elite. This implies infiltration and pretended fellowship with the uninitiated (Orthodox Christians). The secret revelation tends toward notions of hidden ciphers in scripture.
Illuminism is reflected in the first 12 chapters of Luke (NIV) by those passages that deny the importance of the Word of God and remove the rebuke of hypocrisy. (See also those passages above that diminish God's importance and exalt devils). In Luke 4:4 the words in CAPS are excised from the NIV "It is written that man shall not live by bread alone BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD". In Luke 6 Jesus said that someone who hears His sayings and does them is like one who built upon rock. Clearly the rock is God's Word. Where the KJV recognizes that the cause of the house standing is that it "was founded upon a rock" the NIV has that it was "well-built". The hallmark of Illuminism is a secret revelation reserved only for the elite. They condescend to unite with the Orthodox Christians even though they don't agree with them in doctrine. They think that they are giving us time to be enlightened by their initiation. In other words they enshrine hypocrisy. The NIV, based on the Gnostic corrupt Greek of Westcott and Hort, excises the accusation of hypocrite in several places, one of which is in the twelve chapters under consideration Luke 11:44.
A recent work by Taylor [6] makes it very easy for anyone who cannot read Greek to compare the more significant variations adopted based on variation of the Greek text. Counting the deviations (listed in [6]) which resulted from a difference in the Greek text in the book of Matthew 55 of 94 deviations favored Gnostic doctrine, while none of the 94 deviations went against Gnostic doctrine. Twenty-four of them favored spiritism, 16 favored anti-materialism and 15 favored illuminism. Counting the deviations (listed in [6]) which resulted from a difference in the Greek text in the book of Luke 62 of 83 deviations favored Gnostic doctrine, while none of the 83 deviations went against Gnostic doctrine. Thirty-two of these favored spiritism, 14 favored anti-materialism and 16 favored illuminism. The large number of text modifications that don't appear to support Gnostic beliefs may be due to "corrective" modification of a later Gnostic hand. A more likely hypothesis that warrants further investigation is that the modifications were made so that the text would conform to some hidden cipher system. At least one author has used the numerical symmetry of the Westcott and Hort text as an argument for it's authenticity and inspiration [10]. God has never promised numerical symmetry, and He expressly denies any hidden meaning [Isa. 45:18-19, 2 Cor. 4:3-4]. It is significant that in both Matthew and Luke the largest number of deviations concern Spiritism (about half that favor Gnosticism). Can you say that it doesn't matter which version is used in light of this? God says in scripture "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". Exodus 20:3.
The disagreement of the NIV compared to the KJV is often the result of a different underlying Greek text. When this is the case, the English reader may compare the difference in content to Gnostic false doctrine and judge for himself whether the KJV or the NIV favors Gnosticism. When this exercise is performed it is found that about one out of two changes in the NIV based on different Greek favors Gnosticism, and no changes contradict Gnosticism. The changes in the Greek text used for NIV translation are largely based on the Greek text of Westcott and Hort. Since Westcott and Hort put an extremely heavy emphasis on two manuscripts heretofore rejected as depraved texts, one may conclude that these manuscripts are the result of the Gnostic manuscript corruption reported in history.
(b) These Manuscripts (ALEPH and B) Show Wild Discordance Within the Set.
Recall that the two favored manuscripts of Westcott and Hort are known as ALEPH and B. Since these two manuscripts originated at nearly the same time, and are believed by all to have originated from a common ancestor, a high degree of disagreement between the two manuscripts is evidence that they are Gnostic corruptions. This may be concluded because those who report the Gnostic corruptions in history tell us that
"If anyone will take the trouble to collect their several copies and compare them, he will discover frequent divergencies; for example, Ascelepiades's copies do not agree with Theodotus's. A large number are obtainable, thanks to the emulous energy with which disciples copied the 'emendations' or rather perversions of the text by their respective masters....it is possible to collate the ones which his disciples made first with those that have undergone further manipulation, and to find endless discrepancies." [4, p. 237]
In order to establish a basis of comparison, two other manuscripts about the same age as ALEPH will be considered that don't show the marks of Gnostic doctrinal corruption.
ALEPH and B are so closely related that one of their advocates claimed the same copyist worked on part of the two manuscripts [3, p. 318]. The two manuscripts are believed to be about 50 to 100 years apart in age. The time span is very short and the kinship is admitted on all sides. Westcott and Hort put them in the same class and call them highly preferred. But in this short period of time, these two manuscripts show wild variation given the short time between the two. In the four Gospels alone B has 589 readings peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words, but ALEPH has 1460 such readings affecting 2640 words. In perhaps 100 short years the number of peculiar readings grew by 871 [3, p. 318].
Compare this to two more reliable manuscripts A and C. About 400 years passed from the time the gospels were penned to the time that A and C were copied. Yet in St. Luke's Gospel A has only 90 peculiar readings affecting 131 words and C has 87 peculiar readings affecting 127 words [3, p. 249].
Thus the rate of corruption of either A or C compared to the traditional text is less than one ninth of the rate of corruption of ALEPH compared to B. The warning from history of wild variation existing within the set of manuscripts tainted with Gnostic corruptions allows the determination to be made conclusively that ALEPH and B have been depraved through Gnostic corruptions. The high rate of corruption of ALEPH compared to B supports this determination.
(c) These Manuscripts (ALEPH and B) Show Wild Discordance With Manuscripts of Similar Age.
History reports of those who produced manuscripts tainted with Gnostic corruptions that "they did not receive the Scriptures in such a condition from their first teachers, and ... cannot produce any originals to justify their copies." [3, p. 249]
Consider the ten verses of Luke 8:35-44 collated with the Gnostic corruptions ALEPH and B, compared with reliable manuscripts A and C. Recall that a variation is a deviation from the traditional text. A variation may be any one of the standard phenomena of text criticism including omitted words, added words, substituted words, transposed words, variation of case, tense, spelling or phrase. ALEPH has 27 variations compared to the traditional text, and B has 25. ALEPH has 8 readings peculiar to itself and B has 6, yet show 4 common variants. The variants of B are supported by A in only one place, and by C in only one place. The variants of ALEPH are supported by A in only one place, and by C in only one place. [3, p. 17]
This illustrates that ALEPH and B are discordant with manuscripts of similar date. Of the 27 variations that ALEPH displays in this passage only one is supported by A, and only one is supported by C. Of the 25 variations displayed by B, only one is supported by A and only one by C. Since discordance with manuscripts of similar date is one of the characteristics of the Gnostic corruptions, this discordance supports the thesis that ALEPH and B are Gnostic corruptions.
(d) These Manuscripts (ALEPH and B) Show Wild Discordance with the Traditional Text.
The wild discordance of ALEPH and B with the traditional text is a further witness to the fact that they are Gnostic corruptions of the genuine autographs. Westcott and Hort concede in their textual theory that the traditional text is every bit as ancient as the more ancient of ALEPH and B (B). They further acknowledge that it was the consensus of all Church fathers living at the time that the traditional text was identical with the genuine autographs. [2, p. 92]
From church history we know that one of the characteristics of the Gnostic corrupt manuscripts was their wild discordance with the traditional text. In the gospels alone ALEPH and B are shown to be wildly discordant: B shows 7578 variations and ALEPH shows 8972 variations. [3, p. 289] This is surprisingly large since the Gospels contain about 61,400 words, these two manuscripts exhibit a variation of about one word in ten. [3, p. 264]
(2) The Evidence Westcott and Hort Offer is Extremely Weak.
Westcott and Hort admit that it was the unanimous judgment of the whole Christian church of the fourth century that the traditional text is preferred to their coveted codex B (which was copied during the fourth century). In view of this admitted fact, one would expect them to supply weighty evidence indeed. At this point the reader would expect to be buried in academic references, bombarded with arcane facts impossible to sort out. But, surprise! The entire theory comes down to one simple claim summarized in the little word "conflation". That's right, "conflation n. : BLEND FUSION; esp: a composite reading or text. (Webster's Dictionary)" According to Westcott and Hort, you can tell that all ancient Christian witnesses are wrong, and the Christian faith is a sham, because traditional Greek text appears, on the face of it, to them, to be a blended text.
What Westcott and Hort deny is that anyone can weigh this claim by looking at the evidence they offer. I lay this challenge to you: If you can decipher the explanation in this section you will have elevated yourself to the favored class of the elite scholars. For only elite scholars, according to Westcott and Hort, alone are able to understand such matters.
What, pray tell, do they say the traditional text was blended from? They're not really sure. They say that there were two kinds of text welded together, and they have given names to the kinds, but they can't actually produce the two texts; these must have been thrown away long ago by those who were claiming to rid the world of corrupt manuscripts. How convenient. This makes it cumbersome to prove the theory wrong, for a theory must be more than mush before it can be demonstrated wrong. The duty of proof lies with the revisers of all previous Christian history (Westcott and Hort). If the source texts cannot be produced for examination, then how do we know they really existed? While they don't claim to have exact copies of the postulated text types, they have reasonable approximations. Reasonable enough, one must hope, to at least articulate the claim. Of course, it is impossible for Westcott and Hort to tell just how close an approximation these are to the originals since they assume the originals are lost.
They call the two kinds of text "neutral" (meaning that which doesn't differ very much from B and ALEPH) and "western" (meaning that which doesn't differ very much from a codex known as D (or Bezae)). The reader by now is familiar with the character of codices ALEPH and B which are Gnostic corruptions, but what is the pedigree of D? It is not a manuscript from the third or fourth century, but it is from the sixth century. It is not a Gnostic corruption, however, but a text corrupted for some other reason, because the changes do not correlate with Gnostic false doctrines. We know it is corrupted because it differs wildly from the traditional text. By counting text phenomena, it differs from the traditional text of Luke in 4753 places out of only 19,941 words. This amounts to about one modification for every four words. A credible hypothesis is that the text is a re-translation of a Latin manuscript back into Greek. There is nothing novel about producing rabidly depraved manuscripts; these have been available to those interested in such things since the second century. What is new, is to say that the traditional text was fabricated from two manuscripts previously counted as corruptions.
So according to their view, the traditional Greek text, which existed in the fourth century, is a mixture of two source texts. One of these sources is like Codex B (which was copied in the fourth century) and the other is like Codex D (a sixth century manuscript). How could a fourth century document be a blend of a fourth century document and a sixth century document? This is where the concept of conflation is used. They claim that the evidence of looking at D, ALEPH and B is so compelling that the traditional text is a harmonization of these divergent texts that there must have been two source texts that were blended to form the traditional text.
What evidence do they offer that was so compelling to them? Out of the entire New Testament, after searching for 30 years for evidence that would justify their irrational fondness for codex B they have found but eight verses of the traditional text that appear to them to have been fused. They say that since ALEPH and B agree in omitting the same part of these eight verses, and D omits a different part, therefore the traditional text must have been a harmonization of the two which fused the material found in each. To someone who wishes to believe the unanimous witness of the church fathers living in the fourth century, this sounds remarkably like independent omission by one Gnostic copyist of codex B in the fourth century who was hostile to the faith, and by a second copyist (or latin-to-greek translator) 200 years later. In Luke and Mark, B omits 1 of every 21 words, ALEPH omits 1 of every 19 words, and D omits 1 of every 13 words. A reliable copyist of the same era (Codex A) omits only one in 91 words. What would be unexpected about three unreliable witnesses omitting different words in 8 verses of Luke and Mark? For their major premise to even merit consideration they must show that fusion is possible and more credible than independent deletion.
Let the reader judge for himself. Of the eight verses they mention, four of them fail entirely to exhibit the desired phenomena because D contains a paraphrase of the traditional text. This takes care of examples in Mark 6:33, Mark 8:26, Luke 9:10, and Luke 11:54. Since D is a paraphrase of the traditional text, these four verses witness that the traditional text must have come first. Can anyone conceive of a harmonizing copyist inventing details that lie behind a paraphrase? The fifth case they offer is Luke 12:18, but here ALEPH and B diverge, and so this case must be discarded as contradictory to the theory. Finally we are left but three verses in the entire New Testament displaying the desired phenomena. Consider these. The following passages have words in CAPS that ALEPH and B delete, and words preceded by an underscore (e.g.Ê because) which D deletes.
Mark 9:38 "And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out demons in thy name, AND HE FOLLOWETH NOT US: AND WE FORBAD HIM, because he followeth not us."
Mark 9:49 "For every one shall be salted with fire, AND EVERY SACRIFICE SHALL BE SALTED WITH SALT."
Luke 24:53 "And were continually in the temple, PRAISING AND blessing GOD. Amen."
Can the reader see anything in these omissions that favors the hypothesis of Westcott and Hort? How would you show from this evidence that a fusion occurred in all traditional texts of the fourth century rather than independent deletions in the fourth and the sixth centuries in two isolated copies? This is a puzzle that Westcott and Hort don't even attempt to solve. Rather they say it is obvious to all sufficiently trained scholars. Is the emperor clothed? Are cows round? It is my contention, any observer can judge these questions.
Now consider all the facts they have set forth to substantiate their major premise. They have one manuscript which they can prove to be as old as the traditional text of the fourth century, and a second manuscript from the sixth century. These disagree with each other and with the traditional text, wildly. They can produce 8 verses in the New Testament where ALEPH, B, and D exhibit omission but not the same words. In four of these, D paraphrases the traditional text, witnessing that the traditional text is older. Only three can be produced that have ALEPH and B omitting one thing and D something else. Even if it is irrationally believed that the omissions in these three cases witness to fusion rather than deletion, there is the difficulty that the four paraphrases of D contradict this belief. This argument is assembled only from evidence they cite to substantiate their claim, and already they are outnumbered with witnesses against them. I won't bore the reader with the abundant further evidence that witnesses to the antiquity of the traditional text reading of these three verses, but it was cited against the theory 2 years after it was stated in 1883, [3, p. 260-261, notes [3], [4], [8]]
It is no wonder that the modern text critics who adopt this theory don't shrink from positing synoptic theory. Seeing how popular Westcott and Hort have become for having postulated an irrational theory, that amounts to nothing but bald apostasy, without having even to supply or defend the slightest evidence imaginable, the modern text critics have progressed to complete freedom from evidence.
The nature of text evidence in attempting to substantiate a conspiracy theory of such far-reaching implications is extremely weak. They are charging all Christians of the fourth century with the murder of the true autographs. What does the fact that different words are deleted in various old manuscripts have to do with the charge of conspiracy against all ancient Christendom? A fused text is only the merest shadow of a conspiratorial event of this magnitude. It is demanded of a prosecuting attorney when bringing a charge against a single man in this day that he show motive, means, and opportunity before the case is given a hearing. It is reasonable in this case, when countless millions of Christians of the fourth century are being charged with murder of the true autographs, that we extend them the same courtesy.
How does their case stack up to this test? The motive is never stated, and so we are left to wonder why so many would agree in such a fusion. The means, or mechanism by which fusion could be instituted and maintained also is unknown. Opportunity is also totally lacking. Where were the conspiring meetings held? Who presided? How did they get the unwilling to succumb? All of these elements of their case are lacking. All they endeavor to show is that the traditional text may not be the true autographs. This is analogous to the prosecution laboring heavily in a murder trial to show that the victim is dead, and not being able to find the body.
(3) Data Speaking Against the Major Premise is Abundant and Powerful.
It is assumed that the reader will thank me for providing only the briefest outline of the data standing against the major premise of Westcott and Hort. This is justified in that their case is so weak, and the evidence against it so abundant, that the interested reader may occupy the rest of his life with nothing more than studying the data which Westcott and Hort ignored. The purpose of this section is to introduce the reader to the vast body of data that Westcott and Hort, and most modern liberal text critics are willingly ignorant of (In addition to God's Word 2 Pet 3:5).
(a) Data from Church History Shows the Major Premise is False.
Of primary importance in refuting their major premise is the data from church history that stands against any motive, means or opportunity ever being established for such a conspiracy theory. Consider the main features of the church as it existed in ancient Rome before 350 A.D. [7] In this period there was no hierarchy, but only local congregations led by pastors. There was no central control which could be diverted. Prior to 311, every 20 years or so there was a violent persecution of Christians in which they would be fed to the lions or tortured to death. One of the chief controversies of the age was caused because one bishop, after an ebb in the wave of persecution, refused to readmit those to the church who had refused martyrdom. These are the people who are said to have willingly ignored their Lord's word and accepted some unknown church authority! In about 311, Constantine the Great ended the persecutions by legalizing Christianity. At this point, there were nearly as many Christians in the Roman Empire as there were pagans. How could such a large, diverse populace be made to succumb to butchering their Word of Life when they suffered torture and death rather than verbally recant their status as Christian? How could this be done without a single recorded protest in history? How could someone elevate himself in popularity to such an authority status that everyone would accept his judgment without leaving a single historical fact that attests to his authority?
(b) Data that Substantiates the Traditional Text Shows that the Major Premise is False.
Of secondary importance in refuting their major premise is the data that substantiates the authenticity of the traditional text. This is of secondary importance because it is impossible for them to show the motive, means or opportunity for their major premise from an historical standpoint.
A Christian should know that the text has been preserved according to the promise of God in scripture (Jn 10:35, 2 Pet. 1:19, Mt 5:17-18, Jn 5:37-47, Rom 4:21, Is 46:10-11). Indeed the scoffing apostasy of Westcott and Hort does nothing but confirm the trustworthiness of God's Word because He foretold it. [2 Pet 3:1-10] Since Westcott and Hort don't claim to have God's Word preserved, they don't have an alternative for a Christian.
The old man, the scoffing modern scholars, and any unbeliever, is acting contrary to evidence and reason if he fails to recognize the traditional text as the one which the Holy Ghost breathed and preserved. This is evidenced by (i) the translations, (ii) the witness of the fathers, (iii) the witness of the lectionaries, and (iv) the witness of the later copies
(i) The Translations Witness Against the Major Premise.
One problem with the theory that a conspiracy suppressed the true Greek text in the fourth century (or even the third century) is that the Bible was translated into other languages at a very early date. This evidence is very abundant, over 15,000 copies exist of various translations. [9, p. 40]. Since Westcott and Hort reject the unanimous testimony of the Christian Church in the fourth century, they would also explain away the manuscripts of translations that were made after 400 A.D. into Gothic, Georgian, Ethiopic and Nubian. They would, no doubt, say these were dupes of the conspiracy. They would dismiss the translations into Syrian: Palestinian (5th century), Philoxenian (508), and Harkleian (616). They would dismiss the Egyptian translations: Bohairic (4th Century) and Middle Egyptian (5th century). They would likewise dismiss all copies of Jerome's translation into Latin that was completed in 384, demanding more ancient evidence. But there is an inconsistency in this. What is to compel me to accept the witness of two heretical doctors of divinity from the nineteenth century above the witness of fourth and fifth century translators? Their criterion of ancient is better means that I must accept the witness of those nearer the event than those later. The burden of proof laid upon Westcott, Hort, and their modern allies grows to a crushing mountain when it is considered that every New Testament translator between 300 and 1881 must be shown to be a traitor or a dupe to a conspiracy to suppress the true text.
Even if we irrationally accept their demand for a witness before the fourth century, they fare no better. The Peshitta (a translation into Syrian) was produced early in the second century. It is possible that this translation was in the hands of Saint John. There are 350 copies extant of this translation, and they support the traditional text. The old Latin translation that was in use when Jerome prepared the Vulgate was translated much earlier than 300 A.D. because 50 copies are still extant dated between 300 and 400 A.D. This translation is also a witness, prior to the fourth century, that testifies to the authenticity of the traditional text.
(ii) The Church Fathers Witness Against the Major Premise.
Even if all copies of the Greek manuscripts and translations were lost to us, the Bible is such a heavily quoted book in history that it is possible to reconstruct nearly the entire New Testament from quotes scattered about in the early church fathers. Sir David Dalrymple established that the entire New Testament could be assembled from quotes of the fathers of the second and third century except 11 verses. [9, p. 51] The mass of this evidence is demonstrated in the index of New Testament citations of the Church Fathers of Antiquity by the Dean John Burgon who is also the author of the authoritative critique of Westcott and Hort's theory [3]. This index consists of 16 thick volumes and contains 86,489 quotations. [9, p. 52]
How this data may be used to certify the authenticity of the traditional text is illustrated by Dr. Burgon as follows. He considers 15 verses (Mk 10:17-31) copied by Clement of Alexandria in 183 A.D. Alexandria was a hotbed of Gnosticism during this period, and Clement was not completely free of Gnostic taint. Because of this, the witness of Clement against Westcott and Hort is more credible because it shows that no matter how sympathetic one is when choosing witnesses, the traditional text is supported.
When compared to the traditional text Clement differs in 38% of it. But when Clement is compared to Westcott and Hort, he differs by 44%. The reader may well ask how such a corrupt copy could possibly be of use to us at the present time. Since Clement's text evidently is more corrupt than Westcott and Hort, how can his testimony be of any use? Let Clement be considered an impartial witness who lived before any of this controversy arose, and let him weigh in on the proposed changes of Westcott and Hort. Of the 15 changes proposed by Westcott and Hort, 12 of them are rejected by Clement who testifies to the authenticity of the traditional text. [3, p. 327-331] This testimony is 150 years older than the favored manuscripts of Westcott and Hort, and it comes from the area that is most likely to agree with the doctrinal bias of Westcott and Hort.
The authenticity of the traditional text is verified by the fact that the ancient fathers quoted it. If it were welded together in the fourth century, how could someone substantiate it's wording 150 years earlier? To believe such a thing is to turn history on it's head.
(iii) The Lectionaries Witness Against the Major Premise.
There are at least 2143 lectionaries extant. Lectionaries are portions of the New Testament books arranged according to a fixed order for reading in the churches at worship. This system developed at a very early date in the church (probably the first century), because the practice of assembling the scriptures in this way was taken over from Judaism. This being the case, the text of the lectionaries represents a very reliable transmission medium since the lectionaries saw such limited use and were publicly read. The lectionaries support the reading of the traditional text over against the proposed changes of Westcott and Hort.
(iv) The Later Copies Witness Against the Major Premise.
There are about 3000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that were copied by handwriting. Most of these copies are dated after 800 A.D. The class of manuscripts dated after 800 A.D. is known as the "later copies" in this section. It is the contention of Westcott and Hort that since there was a conspiracy that fabricated the traditional text, all later copies may be collapsed into a single fabricated copy of the fourth century which may be ignored. But since they did not show that there was such a conspiracy, the witness of the church in the fourth century is in reality a consensus of independent witnesses to the authenticity of the traditional text. Westcott and Hort don't believe there were any errors due to transmission between the fourth century and the later copies that couldn't be corrected through a majority consensus of the manuscripts. Since they did not prove the fourth century text to be a fabrication, a procedure that corrects the errors in the later copies establishes the authentic text.
The rate that errors formed in transmission by handwriting may be observed by considering how many times Codices A and C mentioned above differ from the traditional text in the book of Luke. This gives about one word being affected in 90 over the course of 400 years. Estimate the New Testament to contain approximately 140,000 words. There are 2000 copies that existed less than 1200 years from the autographs. If the transmission rate was basically the same until the middle ages, and no corrections were made, it may be concluded that the average error rates of the later copies is about 1 word in 30.
Even if all early copies were destroyed, the original text could be recovered from the later copies through error correction. The error correction procedure is to take an odd number of manuscripts and form the corrected text by adopting the words supported by the majority. This recipe of correction is hardly novel, it has intuitive appeal as a reasonable correction algorithm where independent, equally credible witnesses are available.
One modern text critic objects that this method is irrational because the later copies are "too homogeneous" for this model [12, p. 207]. This difficulty may not exist, because this author does not quantify his claim; to a liberal text critic, one error in thirty may be considered homogeneous. Even if the error rate is lower than one word in thirty, it is easily explainable in that a majority vote process may have been employed by many independent witnesses in the course of document transmission, and thus the errors corrected through independent observation. It is significant that no mechanism has ever been put forward by these critics to account for how an archetype would be universally enforced in the monasteries of the middle ages. This is a large difficulty because hand-writing had to be the mechanism of transmitting and enforcing the archetype. Logistically this is a very large task. How could it be executed without evidence is a puzzling mystery.
If it is pessimistically assumed that no copyists in the middle ages employed error correction, it would still only take 7 independent manuscripts with an error rate of 1 word in 30 to establish the New Testament text with only 1 error. If 21 manuscripts are used then the probability of a single error in the new testament is less than 1 part in one hundred thousand. Before the final edition of Erasmus Greek text of the New Testament, he had considered at least 17 Greek manuscripts, and 10 Latin manuscripts on a firsthand basis. Many more manuscripts were consulted by those who reviewed or commented on his publication, including codex B whose variants are mentioned in the margin of the second and 5th editions and accurately characterized as corrupt. In addition to this Erasmus compared two other contemporary Greek editions: the Aldine, and the Complutensian. With this large, diverse body of manuscripts consulted, it is more likely that the original autographs were re-assembled by Erasmus than to think that they were not. [13, p. 35-42]
The later copies are sometimes wrongly thought to be the strongest evidence against the theories of Westcott and Hort. Those who argue from the later copies are accused of trusting only the later copies instead of the ancient. All the opponents of Westcott and Hort attempt to do with this argument, however, is show that it is unreasonable to think that there are any uncorrected errors in the New Testament caused by transmission through writing. The later copies show that Westcott and Hort's theory is wrong because there was no conspiracy in the fourth century. It is unreasonable in the face of historical evidence to believe that the ancient Christian church accepted a fabrication, and so the later copies establish the original autographs.
It is usually claimed that the text type of the later copies isn't represented very strongly in the earlier centuries by remaining manuscripts. This difficulty has not been proved to exist because the "text type" categories have never been precisely defined. (See section II B, and D.) Even if this difficulty exists, it is no serious problem to the traditional view, because the more popular and reliable a manuscript is, the more likely it is that ancient copies would have worn out and no longer be available. One author who has the courage to mention this argument in a scholarly paper [12, p. 206] raised the related difficulty that if this applies to the copies before 800 A.D. why does it not apply to those after 800 A.D. The reason is simple. Movable type was invented in the early 1400's, and manuscripts didn't see the same use that they did prior to it's invention.
When movable type was invented the mechanism for text preservation was changed. Without movable type a reliable manuscript had to be handled at least once, and probably many times for each copy that was produced. With movable type, copies could be produced by the thousand with little more manuscript handling than it previously took to produce one copy. It is no wonder that the Gutenburg Bible is the first book of this period known to be printed in movable type. By 1500, there were more than 1,000 printer shops in Europe. Erasmus, who assembled a Greek edition for printing, lamented the idleness and carelessness of copyists in 1522 "such are the customs of the clergy, who care more about plates than pages and are interested more in money than manuscripts." [13, p. 41]
In the later copies we have a snapshot of the reliable manuscripts that were employed to preserve the text through transmission by handwriting. As you go back in time before the invention of movable type, the more reliable manuscripts gradually taper away until none are available before 800. This same phenomenon is observed in other works that were preserved by transmission through handwriting. The following list gives the title and date of the earliest extant copy of 14 works whose earliest extant copy is later than 800: Caesar (900 A.D.), Plato Tetralogies (900 A.D.), Tacitus Annals (1100 A.D.), Tacitus minor works (1000 A.D.), Pliny the Younger History (850 A.D.), Thucydides History (900 A.D.), Suetonius De Vita Caesarum (950 A.D.), Herodotus History (900 A.D.), Sophocles (1000 A.D.), Catullus (1550 A.D.), Euripides (1100 A.D.), Demosthenes (1100 A.D.), Aristotle (1100 A.D.), Aristophanes (900 A.D.). [9, p. 42] The Bible has much support before 800 A.D. by manuscripts that were not used regularly by professional scribes, but this evidence is inferior to that of the later copies because the breadth of evidence more than compensates for the time span from the original {see also section II B. point (2) comment (c)} If this is not reasonable to you, then can you tell where so many homogeneous copies would have appeared from if not from an abundance of similar copies that existed in previous centuries but were worn out?
(c) Recent Papyri Finds Prove the Major Premise False
When Westcott and Hort published their Greek Text in 1881, all but one of the more than 200 early Egyptian Papyri were yet to be discovered. According to their view, none of these Papyri (dated between 100 and 300 A.D.) should support the readings that are included in the traditional text but not in ALEPH, B, or D. They believe their major premise (that the traditional text was fabricated in the fourth century).
Sturz [14] has collected lists of readings found in Papyri dated between 100 and 300 A.D. that contradict the major premise of Westcott and Hort. His first list gives 150 different readings of the traditional text, that Westcott and Hort rejected because they were found in neither ALEPH, nor B, nor D. This evidence is extremely damning to the major premise because it is 50 times longer than the list Westcott and Hort offer for proof of conflation. A second list of Sturz contains 170 readings found in the traditional text that were confirmed by early Papyri, but were rejected by Westcott and Hort because they were not found in ALEPH or B but were found in D. A third list contains 80 readings found in the traditional text that were confirmed by early Papyri, but were rejected by Westcott and Hort because either ALEPH, or B, or D did not contain the reading.
(4) The Beliefs of Westcott and Hort Favor Gnosticism.
"Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!", Isaiah 5:20
Given the incredible weight of evidence standing against the theory of Westcott and Hort, and the very thin evidence they offer to establish their theory, it is natural to ask: what motivated their theory? Since Westcott and Hort say that the church up to their time has been following the wrong manuscript, they claim that Christianity for the last 1500 years has been a large heretical sect. Since their favored manuscripts show Gnostic doctrinal corruption, it is natural to suspect that they espoused Gnosticism, and this is the reason for their conclusion. A brief review of the history of Gnosticism compared to Westcott and Hort's biographies and works shows this to be true. Early in their career Westcott and Hort were open, flagrant spiritists. This apostasy continued throughout their life but was veiled in secrecy for the success of their text critical theory. The doctrine that they taught publicly reveals their Gnostic bias.
One might think that the correlation of Westcott and Hort's heresies with one of the early heretical groups is nothing more than coincidence. The history of the Gnostic heresy makes this thought impossible because Gnosticism was an extremely popular and repulsive heresy. The visible roots of Gnosticism trace back to Philo Judaeus (20 B.C. to 40 A.D.) a learned Jew of Alexandria who had a school that produced most of the prominent early Gnostic leaders including Basilides [7, p. 74] who also established a school in Alexandria. Basilides was secretive about the unspeakably disgusting practices, but we know from those who practiced openly (e.g. Carpocrates) that they cast spells by sorcery, practice dream-bringing of familiar spirits, and so on. "In keeping with this they teach that all the vilest things must be done by those who intend to go through with their initiation into these 'mysteries' or rather abominations; for in no other way can they escape the 'cosmic rulers' than by rendering to them all the due performance of unspeakable rites." [4, p. 159, p. 87] These unspeakable rites involved cannibalism, unlawful intercourse and such like. It is reported that the Gnostic movement was the mother of nearly every heresy that plagued early Christendom [4, p. 86]. Yet they did not represent a monolithic organization that agreed in doctrine, but "one after another new heresies were invented, the earlier ones constantly passing away and disappearing, in different ways at different times, into forms of every shape and character." [4, p. 160]
Because Gnostics claimed to be Christians, it was believed that Christians did these horrible things, and this was the wellspring of the persecutions. [4, p. 160-161]. The religious doctrines that characterized Gnosticism were not always found with the unspeakable rites in evidence. For example, Clement of Alexandria (150-215) and Origen (185-254) were apparently never accused of partaking of the secret rites, though they espoused Gnostic doctrine. It is difficult to find a heresy from the early church that was not related in some way to Gnosticism. One can learn a great deal about the opposing doctrines that precipitated the creeds by comparing the summary of Gnostic doctrine presented earlier with the content of the creeds. It is no coincidence that Arius (318) the leader of the controversy that opposed the true church and necessitated the creeds was a presbyter at Alexandria [7, p. 121], the hot-bed of Gnosticism.
As an undergraduate in 1851 Westcott organized something called the Hermes club with Hort and Edward White Benson who later became the Bishop of Canterbury. In Hort's own words this was "a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being disposed to believe that such things really exist." [15, p. 211] Hort's enthusiasm for investigating the phenomena was unbounded, he proselytized by passing out papers by the thousand. [15, p. 219] Westcott's son says that his father had a lifelong "faith in what for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism." [11, p. 235] They were not above recruiting impressionable students as members. Henry Sidgwick a student of Westcott's and cousin to Benson was recruited before he took his degree in 1859.
Hort suggested that their spiritism remain hidden for the success of their text theory. In 1860 (22 years before published) Hort wrote to Westcott "This may sound cowardice--I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms." [15, p. 445] And elsewhere, Hort said "If only we speak our minds, we shall not be able to avoid giving grave offense to...the miscalled orthodoxy of the day." [15, p. 421] Westcott evidently agreed, for his son reports in his biography that "My father labored under the imputation of being 'unsafe'." [11, p. 235] and "What happened to this (ghostly) Guild in the end I have not discovered. My father ceased to interest himself in these matters, not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what for lack of a better name one must call Spiritualism" [11, p. 119]
Someone today objecting to such membership may be called superstitious or old fashioned. But scripture says "Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God." Lev 19:31, (c.f. Lev 20:6 Deut 18:11)
Although they never openly claimed to be Gnostics, their favor for Gnostic doctrine was evident in their life and beliefs. Hort read Philo Judaeus more than any other author. [16, p. 485] Westcott said he was anxious to learn all he could of "the (Jewish?) literature of the apostolic age" especially Philo Judaes. [11, p. 233] Among the beliefs classified as Gnostic Spritism in section II-A-(1)-(a) Westcott and Hort taught the following: that the Father is not God [8,p. 10], that Jesus is not God [8, p. 22-26], that the Holy Spirit is not God [8, p. 15], that the devil is not a person but a power [8, p. 13], that heaven is not a physical place but purely spiritual [8, p. 16], that Hell is not a place but represents earthly suffering before death [8, p. 17]. Among the beliefs classified as Gnostic Anti-Materialism in section II-A-(1)-(a) Westcott and Hort taught the following: that the spirit of man is divine [8, p. 9, 11], that Jesus was a mere man [8, p. 22-26], that Christ is a possessing spirit that descended at Jesus' baptism [8, p. 14], that the resurrection of the body of Jesus is not true [8, p. 32], that the father is the creator of all material including man in his present state [8, p. 9]. Among the beliefs classified as Gnostic Illuminism in section II-A-(1)-(a) Westcott and Hort taught: that it is not the word of God that is inspired, but the messengers [8, p. 5], that revelation is in scripture, but not scripture itself [8, p. 5], that God is the primary revealer (note they say that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not God, so they must mean spirits by this) [8, p. 7].
Thus we are left with the conclusion that a group previously discounted as heretical by the early church was to Westcott and Hort the keeper of the truest autographs. These people were made to suffer the brand of heretic, and up until 1881 languished in obscurity. In essence what is behind their major premise is a subtext accusing the Christian church as a whole of false doctrine and successful suppression of the true church. But how do we know what the true Christian church is? This is not primarily an historical question, but a doctrinal question. The true Christian Church is that Church which publicly teaches the doctrine ordained by God and administers the sacraments according to Christ's institution. It is irrational to think that Gnosticism is true Christianity because the Messiah of Christianity must be the Messiah who was promised and foretold in the Old Testament Scriptures. The proof that the publicly accepted Christian Church is heretical must be made from the Old Testament. But this Westcott and Hort never do. In fact their entire system is impossible in the face of the Old Testament. For one need read no further than the first commandment to know that Gnosticism does not reflect true Judaism. "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Exodus 20:3
B. Consequent Assumptions of Westcott and Hort are False Because the Major Premise is False.
Recall the major premise of Westcott and Hort: that there was a conspiracy that fabricated the traditional text. Derived from their major premise are several principles used in the text critical method that are wrong because the major premise is wrong. Westcott admitted premeditation in the rejection of the traditional Greek text when, 30 years before it was published, he said "I am anxious to provide something to replace them." [11, p. 229] A summary of the modern principles of text criticism [1, p. 419-453] will be analyzed in the light of the erroneous nature of their major premise. As the principles are discussed, note particularly those things denoted in the right hand column by lower case letters according to the following notation. Three items are particularly of note (a) the principles which artificially favor the Gnostic texts and (b) the principles that only make sense if their major premise is believed (c) the principles that call for something impossible on the part of the critic.
Westcott & Hort Principle:
(1) A scribe usually went about blending the texts available to him trying to make improvements to the text.
Analysis:
This makes no sense whatever unless you assume the text was lost. What would be the motive for a faithful scribe? To improve God's Word?
Westcott & Hort Principle:
(2) Older manuscripts have fewer corruptions.
Analysis:
This principle is wrong. Observe that the poorest condition books are those used most frequently. The roughest book I own is my Bible. The only way a book can last a long time is if it is so corrupt that it is never used. The fact that a book has survived for a very long time is an indicator of corruption. Two cases in point: B which was on a forgotten shelf in the Vatican library, and ALEPH which was literally snatched from the waste fire.
While it would be true that older manuscripts are more reliable if the later manuscript is known to have been copied only from the earlier one, this information is unknown. If many independent later manuscripts are compared using a majority vote, an error rate is achieved that is lower than the error rate of single older copies. For example, if 3 manuscripts are used with an error rate of 1/30 words each (12th century) an error rate of 1/300 is achieved in the resultant text. This error rate is more than 3 times lower than a single reliable 4th century manuscript.
Westcott & Hort Principle:
(3) You must not look at each variant point-by-point within a document to determine the character, but you must make a value judgment of the document as a whole.
Analysis:
This principle prevents them from being forced to prove their assertion. Who can present any evidence against them other than point-by-point. With this principle they can make any judgment about any document they wish and claim academic superiority without any evidence whatever.
Westcott & Hort Principle:
(4) If a document is of mixed type (appears to be a harmonization of two contradictory texts), then a critic must divorce the two types and rely on the older or more reliable type.
Analysis:
The critic is totally free to choose any false reading he wishes. He is also unassailable on this point if he posits anything at all because who can prove any such fabrication wrong without having the originals. He can also claim that all evidence that disagrees with the hypothesized reading supports it because it is longer, and must be a blend.
Unless you can prove that a fabrication occurred in the past, this principle is wrong. It essentially assumes deletions didn't occur but blending.
Who can tell what the two originals were without having them? This makes putting the toothpaste back in the tube look easy.
Westcott & Hort Principle:
(5) A very small group may be good, a very large group may be bad. (By group they mean a set of manuscripts that give largely the same reading and so form a common witness).
Analysis:
Could they perhaps be thinking of their small group of corrupt witnesses over against the +95% large group that supports the traditional text? A principle this obvious shows lack of imagination
The formation of groups is something which they first introduced, but they never clearly defined the criteria for group formation or explained what constituted their groups or how they arrived at them.
Westcott & Hort Principle:
(6) If of 10 readings 9 agree and one is different, the tenth is preferred.
Analysis:
This only makes sense if they are talking about a fabrication. Since there is no such thing, this principle leads to a wrong text.
Westcott & Hort Principle:
(7) Counting manuscripts must play no part at all because all manuscripts that agree descend from a common ancestor, and so must be counted as a single example.
Analysis: How convenient for Gnosticism. Take an analogy to an election process: Suppose there are three candidates I, II, and III. 99.99% vote for I, 0.004% for II, and 0.001% for III. By their reasoning this election is a tie because there are three candidates. While it is true that you must select one of the three, that doesn't mean that all three candidates are equally supported by votes.
They fail to inform the reader that no one has been able to prove that any extant manuscript is the ancestor of any other extant manuscript. We have a host of witnesses, but we know absolutely nothing about how they descended or are related to one another. Since this information is lacking, any hypothesis of ancestry is unfounded. By this ruse they try to collapse a host of independent witnesses into one opinion which they will ignore.
This assumes the critic knows the answer ahead of time. How else can he be assured that the majority of witnesses don't favor the right answer? Why complicate the matter with terminology and learning. They should adopt the simple principle that the critic may choose whatever text he wants, in spite of all evidence, and save us the trouble of reading their circular reasoning.
Westcott & Hort Principle:
(8) The only kind of consent between documents that shows community of origin is community of error.
Analysis:
Marvelous! Here we are again being able to tell which documents are in error. If the critic knows what an error is when he sees one, then he must also know what the true text is. It would be nice, if Westcott and Hort claimed to know the true text, but they claim the opposite. They leave us to doubt saying they are left to subjective considerations. Then how can they spot errors?
Westcott & Hort Principle:
(9) In a mixture the ancestor stands nearer to the autograph than any of it's later copies. Therefore a mixture cannot speak against an ancestor.
Analysis:
There is no such thing as mixture that has been demonstrated so this principle is wrong.
Recall that not a single case of manuscript ancestry has ever been proven. They are theorizing about thin air.
Westcott & Hort Principle:
(10) The harder (poor grammatically) and shorter reading is preferred. (This assumes that the source texts were bad grammatically and that they were shorter than the resultant text)
Analysis:
This only makes sense if it is believed that a fabrication took place. This essentially assumes that the penmen who spoke Greek fluently didn't even bother to check their own grammar in what they wrote, and that the Holy Ghost didn't care.
This principle favors the Gnostic corruptions, because the Gnostics had a low regard for Scripture and changed words to suit them. A lapse in grammar is more likely to occur in this procedure because grammatical agreement is likely to slip by such a butcher, who attempted to falsify what he found. Unless it is a first draft, native writers tend to use flawless grammar. Since many doctrinally motivated corruptions are omissions, this principle favors the Gnostic corruptions.
C. The Text Criticism Method of Westcott and Hort
The method comes down to five steps. (1) Classify documents according to similar type of reading. (2) Find the Parent for each type of text (that is: the oldest of that type). (3) Ignore all the rest of the evidence except the Parents. (4) Ignore those parents which are believed to be a mixture of other parents. (5) Where the remaining parents disagree you must rely on the personal taste of the revered experts.
From the fallacies pointed out in the previous section the reader is able to list what is wrong with each step of this method. The biggest fallacy in my estimation is step (3), when all evidence but the parents is ignored. The implicit assumption is that the oldest document that agrees broadly with a large class of readings is the document from which all latter documents were copied. No ancestry link between any two manuscripts has ever been established. The fact that one document has survived longer than others is more likely evidence that it was not in the same lineage at all. This implicit assumption is nothing but the opposite of the sensible assumption. By this assumption, the entire host of extant evidence is reduced to the earliest, and therefore most corrupt, representative. It is perhaps more amazing that this one representative is subsequently ignored for subjective reasons. Such a procedure is extremely damaging to the true faith because we know that some manuscripts within this era were fabricated by people hostile to God's word. Surely ignoring the doctrinal deviation at each variation is the same as giving equal time to heretics. But Westcott and Hort do more than that, they enshrine the doctrinal deviations due to their own theological bias. It is a sad commentary on the current crop of Text Critical scholars that they call conservatives who support the traditional text theologically biased, but say that Westcott and Hort who were biased with a heresy were "objective." [12, p. 204]
D. The Application of the Text Criticism Method is Disastrous.
The method of text criticism defined by Westcott and Hort has been applied with disastrous results. Westcott and Hort themselves used it as an excuse to disregard the traditional text entirely. They defined the following four categories.
Traditional text: (also called Byzantine or Syrian or Antiochian or GraecoSyrian or Constantinopolitan or Asiatic or Oriental or Koine or Common or Alpha) A lot of names for something which Modern Text Critics only ignore. Westcott and Hort claim this is a blending of Western and Neutral texts.
Western text: represented by D. Westcott and Hort claim this was a corruption of the Neutral text.
Alexandrian text: Westcott and Hort claim this was generated by an attempt to correct the Western to agree with Neutral.
Neutral text: Represented by B, and vaguely by ALEPH. Disagreeing with Traditional, Western and Syrian. Westcott and Hort say no manuscript, version, or patristic writer preserves this text in its original purity.
These are new terms, but the conclusions have already been presented. In the new terminology, Westcott and Hort believed that there were two New Testament text revisions. They said that the Syrian text is a conflation of Western and Neutral types. Since the Syrian is a blend it must be ignored. (The traditional text of scripture is a forgery). They said that the Neutral text type is the original and was corrupted to form the Western type. The Western type was made closer to the Neutral through revision, resulting in the Alexandrian text type. Since they say you should only use the oldest document of any given type, this means codices B and ALEPH must be used exclusively to form the New Testament. (The Gnostic corrupted texts must be used to replace the traditional New Testament.)
Recent text critics have not blindly accepted the complete system of Westcott and Hort. Indeed there is room for arguing that if all the criticisms of Westcott and Hort are gathered from the various modern text critics, a complete refutation of their system may be assembled. While they have not been uncritical, recent text critics have in large measure adopted Westcott and Hort's major premise, conclusions, text criticism method, text type definitions, and favored corrupt manuscripts. This is why so much space has been given in the present essay for refutation of Westcott and Hort. Modern text critics' conclusions are in practice identical with those of Westcott and Hort. They still ignore the traditional text and believe in spite of the evidence that there was a conspiracy that fabricated the traditional text. Modern text critics trust ALEPH and B so that their resultant text differs very little from that of Westcott and Hort. Modern text critics adopt Westcott and Hort's critical method and principles; how could they possibly come to true conclusions when at the foundation of their system is an outrageous lie?
Recent text critics have eliminated the Neutral category, saying that ALEPH and B are the oldest of the Alexandrian text type. This is a fatal admission. The witness comes from those who adopt the theory of Westcott and Hort, so the witness is biased toward their view. It shows that the category of Neutral was a begging of the question. The major premise, that an authoritative revision produced the traditional text, has grown into an exalted myth among text critics which no one dare question. Since no one has ever shown that there was a revision, each critic may believe his own mechanism, author, and source texts of the mythical revision. The so called experts are not able to convince one another. Their various conflicting opinions demonstrate that it has not been proved. If it had they would all agree. For example, Von Soden thinks there were three revisions instead of two, but no one really agrees with this. [14, p. 22] Streeter disagrees with the notion of authoritative revision saying the revision was not global, but local. A small minority rejecting both of these innovations, still cling entirely to the whole system of Westcott and Hort, "neutral" text type and all. No one is allowed to speak of manuscripts among the modern critics unless he uses the three remaining text types defined by Westcott and Hort. This is amazing, since Westcott and Hort never even bothered to explain what they meant by the categories they used, other than which manuscripts they thought to be the earliest representative of the type. The practice of only trusting the earliest representative of a type is very attractive to the modern text critics because they are lazy. Why bother looking at more than the earliest text type since the problem must be solved with subjective considerations anyway. Instead they just trust the earliest representatives (ALEPH and B).
That the modern text critics attempt to build theory based on a foundation of sand is amazing. But the reader should recall that the theory is very complimentary to the scholastic elite. The acceptance of the theory is self-serving and self-aggrandizing. They want to have their publications well-received by their peers. But most of all they want to deny the inspiration and preservation of the Scripture because it gives them the opportunity to substitute their own word for God's Word. They want to sit in judgment of God and be better than Him. The temptation is not new, in the garden of Eden the devil brought about the fall with this temptation saying "ye shall be as God" Gen 3:5.
It is God's Word that created and maintains the present order of the physical world. The moderns lie when they say that the physical world created or determines God's Word. This lie is the mark God has given for us to recognize this apostasy. (2 Pet 3:3-13)
E. Modern Text Critics have Never Answered the Points Raised in this Essay Although the Weighty Arguments Were Cited within 2 Years of the Publication of the Text Critical Method.
The reader should not think that a proper view of text criticism is nowhere to be found in the present day. There are a large number of scholars today who are questioning more and more of the text critical principles they inherited from Westcott and Hort. They have not totally thrown off the yoke of erroneous assumptions brought by Westcott and Hort for the success of their Gnostic New Testament. Nor is the Greek text of Westcott and Hort thoroughly Gnostic. About 10% of the New Testament was doubted or rejected by Westcott and Hort. Recent scholars have assembled texts that place more weight on the traditional text than Westcott and Hort. Hodges, Farstad, et al. assembled a text they mis-named the "Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text." The name is misleading because they have incorporated minority readings [12, p.196], yet they have reduced the variation with the traditional text down to 1%. A huge step in the right direction. Other modern authors that advocate the correct view include Pickering, Moorman, etc. A Greek text that truly contains the majority text has been assembled by Pierpont and Robinson. The recognition of the King James Version as the best translation is becoming common among layman. A recent book criticizing the modern versions has sold 50,000 copies. [5]
Recently some text critics have tried to refute the supporters of the traditional text. The attempt of Wallace [12] is particularly noteworthy because it is very recent, and shows the typical arguments. The ammunition of the text critics consists mainly of name calling, name dropping, and ignoring the arguments which, they admit, have been known for over 100 years but remain unanswered.
Name calling: the first line of defense is to claim that traditional text advocates don't have proper credentials. [12, p. 188, 197, 200 (note 96)]. When traditionalists do have credentials acceptable to them they call us other names. Burgon doesn't deserve to be answered because he has an acid pen. [12, p. 189] Westcott wouldn't read or answer him because of "violence" in his writing. [12, p. 189] Hoskier may be ignored because he is "quirkish" [12, p. 197 (note 83)]. Hills is accused of academic dishonesty because he only got his credentials by pretending to believe the modern Text Critical School [12, p. 192]. Hills and his followers are theologically biased (believe inspiration and preservation) [12, p. 192, 197, 198, 201 (esp. note 97), 202, 203, 204]. Traditionalists are called "schizophrenic," [12, p. 213] "backwaters," [12, p. 185] and "prejudiced." [12, p. 201] Their views are called a "scholarly curiosity", which doesn't rate an answer. [12, p. 200].
Name dropping: the second line of defense is to say all the really important text critics accept the views of Westcott and Hort and so you have to accept the more learned view. Thus famous scholars are paraded who dismiss the traditional text with a wave of the hand without adducing any reasons whatever. Thus Martin Vincent, A. T. Robertson, Leo Vagany, Bruce Metzger are paraded. [12, p. 189] So also G. D. Kilpatrick [12, p. 192] and Greenlee [12, p. 200] are cited. Even the author, Daniel B. Wallace, references his own works, and dismisses Traditional Text advocates out of hand without any proof. [12, p. 200 (note 96), p. 208 (notes 134-6)] When modern critics reject the traditional view without evidence, this procedure of refutation is evidence of the poverty of their argument. Later, when it is admitted that the better traditionalist scholars have never been answered, [12, p. 189] it shows why name dropping must be employed.
If traditionalists are really such unlearned dolts, why can they not be answered convincingly without resorting to name calling and name dropping as two main lines of attack? As highly learned as the elite critics are, it should be child's play to answer simpletons like me. Yet their silence is devastating. They admit that no point by point rebuttal to Burgon has ever been prepared. [12, p. 189] Again, it is argued that the acceptance of the traditional text is a 'scholarly curiosity'. And since there are no text critics alive today that believe it, it will not be answered. Yet they admit that there are prejudiced, fundamentalist, backwater, schizophrenics who believe it. It may seem strange that their learned fury pleases me. Without it, it would be difficult to illustrate that they really have no convincing arguments. Wallace is extremely convincing that he cannot answer the traditionalists, simply because in the end, he admits he must ignore their arguments and call them names, and find excuses for not considering what they say. He stands before us as one of the many so-called scholars who write before they read, and condemn before they consider.
I thank thee Lord God heavenly father that thou hast hid these things from the wise and the prudent and hast revealed them unto babes. For thus it pleases God to reveal the devil's mask to all men low and high.
References
1. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, 2nd Ed., A. H. McNeile, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1955.
2. The New Testament in the Original Greek, Text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott D. D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort D.D. Cambridge and London 1881. Volume 2 Introduction.
3. The Revision Revised, John William Burgon B.D. Dean of Chichester. October 31, 1883.
4. Eusebius The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, Translated with an introduction by G. A. Williamson. Penguin Books Baltimore Maryland 1965.
5. New Age Bible Versions, G. A. Riplinger. A. V. Publications Munroe Falls Ohio, 1993.
6. R. G. Taylor, Distorted Scripture: Analysis of the New International Version of the Holy Bible Compared to the King James Version, New Haven Indiana July 1995.
7. A History of the Christian Church, Lars P. Qualben Thomas Nelson and Sons, New York, 1942.
8. Heresies of Westcott & Hort, Rev. D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D., 1979, by Plains Baptist Challenger, Lubbock, Texas.
9. Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Volume I, Josh McDowell, Here's Life Publishers, Inc., San Bernardino CA, 1986.
10. The Shorter Works of Ivan Panin, The British Israel Association 1238A Seymour Street Vancouver, 1934.
11. The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. I, Arthur Westcott, London: Macmillan and Co., Limited 1903.
12. Daniel B. Wallace, The Majority-Text Theory: History, Methods and Critique, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society June 1994 pp. 185-215.
13. Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament From Philologist to Theologian, Erika Rummel, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1942.
14. The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism, H. A. Sturz, H. A. Thomas Nelson, NY 1984.
15. The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, Arthur Hort, Macmillan and Co. Ltd., London, 1896.
16. The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. II, Arthur Hort, Macmillan and Co. Ltd., London, 1896.
This document may be reproduced in its entirety free of charge for non-commercial private use only. This document may not be otherwise reproduced in whole or in part without the express written consent of the authors.
Jeffrey
A. Young, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering (Digital Communication)
Seminary
training from my Pastor since fall '89 (currently 2/3 done)
Synodical
Affiliation: Lutheran Churches of the Reformation
Church: Christ Lutheran
Church of the Reformation, Ft. Wayne, IN