Bro. Ashbrook's chapter on "The History of the Textus Receptus"
presents
a rather full argument in favor of modern textual criticism. The article
cannot be construed to maintain any neutrality on the text issue. "The
limitations of the Textus Receptus cannot be ignored," the writer tells
us. "The textual question that faces God's people today is whether or not
we should stop with the Received Text of 1633. To use an illustration,
the Textus Receptus is the Model T Ford of the New Testament text." He
goes on to say that it would be a shame to stop all automotive progress
with the Model T. In other words, the T.R. was a good beginning, even a
milestone, but "further textual criticism" has been needed to get us
closer to the original text.
This argument carries weight until all the facts are considered. The
so-called "TextusReceptus" Greek testaments published in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries represented the culmination of work by scholars
to present the text of the Bible as it had been passed on and "received"
by the churches through the centuries. Those scholars assumed that the
correct wording of scripture had been preserved over the years in the
prevailing text. In the few cases where the identity of the pre-eminent
traditional text was in dispute, these men sought to ascertain the best
readings. The reason this series of improving Greek texts ended was that
the work had been virtually perfected. Scholars with the same philosophy
and assumptions would arrive at basically the same text today! The
textual critics of the Enlightenment era, however, approached the Bible
with different assumptions. They did not continue in the path of the
Reformation scholars. The testaments they produced were assembled upon
the idea that the original text had to a significant degree been lost to
the traditional text. Whole verses and even larger passages had been
wrongfully added over the years, as well as thousands of words, they
believed. To restore the original text, critics believed they must favor
readings found only in a tiny minority of the manuscripts, long rejected
and hidden away. The work of Griesbach, Tischendorf, Wescott, and Hort
was not a continuation of the work of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the
Elzevirs. Modern text criticism represents a whole new approach, based on
a different theory.
The belief that God has preserved the correct wording of the
scriptures
for His people over the years is not a strange new concept. As a matter
of fact, page 191 of the book we are examining contains a portion of the
Westminster Confession of 1647 which addresses the issue of preservation.
It says that the scriptures in Hebrew and Greek "being immediately
inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all
ages, are therefore authentical," and cites Matthew 5:18.
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
The Baptist Confession of 1688 affirms the same belief, and is also
cited. Modern textual theories deny this faith. It is not unreasonable or
unorthodox to challenge the new text on the basis of the old view of
Biblical preservation.
The book, however, consistently sides with the new theory and
against
the old. Yes, many competent and orthodox scholars endorse the revised
text, but also there are many reasonable and godly voices that speak in
defense of the traditional text. (See the quotations of Robert Dabney on
pages 90, 91, and 92, given to prove a different point). Let the whole
truth be told.
3. The book regularly implies that those who have decided to defend the
King James Bible do so out of ignorance. Dr. Gephart's concluding chapter
admonishes us to "do our homework" (p. 213) before we speak on the
text/translation issue, implying that many (in the context, on the K.J.V.
side) have not. In his introductory chapter, Dr. Williams speaks of the
need for people to get "reliable historic information" in regard to the
issue so as not to be misled by "the misinformation that is being
circulated" (vs. 8-9). Without a doubt, some misleading statements have
been published in this debate, but not only by advocates of the
traditional text. On page 182 of this very book, Dr. Smallman includes a
strange and inaccurate reference to Dr. Edward Hills as a "colleague and
literary heir of Dean [John] Burgon." Of course, Edwards was the author
of The King James Version Defended and perhaps the founder of the latest
movement to defend the traditional text. John Burgon, Dean of Chichester,
was a leading nineteenth-century scholar who opposed the revision of the
Biblical text and of the English Bible. Certainly Burgon's writings
influenced Hills, but the latter was certainly not a "colleague" of the
former. Edward Hills was born some 24 years after the Dean's death! Of
course, this misstatement was simply a mistake, but it also indicates not
doing one's homework!
Some of the authors speak in defense of the orthodoxy of Wescott and
Hort, indicating that the charges of heresy made against them by
K.J.V.-defenders are examples of the misinformation being disseminated
(pp. 4 and 212-213). However, the extensive research done by Dr. James
Sightler and published in the book entitled A Testimony Founded
Forever certainly seems to establish what false doctrines both of the
great critics held without repentance. Of course, the theological
weaknesses of the exponents of a textual theory do not disprove the value
of their theory, but they do play a legitimate role in the discussion of
the theory. The blemishes of Erasmus are used on page 102 to cast
reflection on his role in the development of the Textus Receptus. Wescott
and Hort were indeed caught up in the heterodox trends of their day, and
reference to their heresies are not illegitimate.
A whole chapter in the book is given to the misleading but
often-repeated assertion that the King James Version of the Bible had
undergone seven "revisions" before the Revised Version appeared in 1881.
But none of the changes made in succeeding editions of the old Bible
could legitimately classify those editions as revisions. Nearly all of
the differences are spelling changes, and the very few substantive
changes are highly insignificant. To compare the Revision of 1881 with
any of the improvements made in the K.J.V. over the years is misleading
and inaccurate.
The book also includes the statement that "no two New Testament
manuscripts are exactly alike." Those familiar with the literature on
this subject have seen this statement repeatedly used to undermine the
idea that a traditional text of the Bible even exists! However, the fact
is that the great majority of New Testament manuscripts are amazingly
consistent. While technically true, the statement that no two manuscripts
are "exactly" the same is also misleading. Many of the manuscripts are
the same except for small details like spelling inconsistencies. The fact
is that a traditional text does exist, and this confusing statement does
not change that fact.
Yes, people have juggled history to make points in this discussion,
and
errors of fact have been published, but the problem has not been only on
one side, and preference for the traditional text of the Bible is not a
product of ignorance!
4. Like other books that advocate modern text criticism, From the Mind
of
God. . . makes confusing statements about the differences between the
Textus Receptus and the Critical Text.
"While there are two main text families, most of their 5,940
specific
variations are very minor differences. None of the differences change any
Christian doctrines, though some believe that about one-tenth of them
have some doctrinal bias." (page 182)
The writer of these statements says that there are "two main text
families," although among the thousands of extant manuscripts of the
Greek New Testament, one of those "families" is supported nearly 9-to-1.
There is only one main text family of New Testament manuscripts, and a
small minority family advocated by a majority of the critics! Then, in an
attempt to minimize the differences between the two texts, the writer
admits to "5,940 specific variations." He says that 10% of these
variations "have some doctrinal bias." Of course, that means that there
are nearly six hundred changes from the traditional text that make
doctrinal differences! Does anyone really think that the difference the
new Greek text makes is minor?
Yes, the Critical Text still gives us a basically orthodox New
Testament, but it is a different New Testament that teaches a different
slant on the truth. In the nineteenth century, scholars accepted a
revised text of the Bible based on the belief that the traditional text
had given the church a flawed testimony to what had been originally
written. The changed text received scholarly and, to some degree,
ecclesiastical acceptance, but it did not receive the acceptance of
Christians at large. The Revised Version and the American Standard
Version, which put the revised text into English, never received popular
support. The King James Version was the Bible of the people for more than
a century after the Critical Text was first published. It has only been
in the last twenty years that the traditional text has received real
competition among common Bible-believers. The reason the battle has been
loud and hot is because it is a serious matter for the churches to throw
out the Biblical text they have accepted as the Word of God for at least
1500 (and many of us believe 1900) years! For believers in Christ to
accept the idea that God's written Word was not preserved pure for His
people over the centuries would be one of the most significant
alterations of belief in church history. Yes, we must get the facts
straight, but, no, the facts do not require such a major shift in the
Christian faith.
