Coachlight Bible Study – Genesis Lesson XI - Genesis 3:1 – 3:21

The Curse – Part V – The Sewing Of Tares In Today’s World

 

The purpose of this lesson is to show the evidence of the Holy Spirit doing the work of preserving the manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments down through the ages.  It is designed also to show how Satan has tried to twist and contort Scripture since the beginning of time, and while he succeeds for a short period of time, he can not thwart God’s Plan or the Divine Preservation of Scripture.

Because of God’s divine preservation, we have today the pure, undefiled, and eternal Word of God.  This, of course, is done in the most extreme circumstances, with satan wanting to twist God’s Word always.

 

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psalm 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. {them from: Heb. him, etc: that is, every one of them, etc}

 

Part I - The Word of God

 

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: {thou…: Heb. eating thou shalt eat}

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

Part II - The Temptation

 

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Genesis 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Genesis 3:6  And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

 

A. The First Subtle Trick - The Serpent “Twisted” God’s Word (Verse 1)

1. The serpent led Eve to question God’s authority and goodness

2. The serpent quoted chapter 2 verse 16, but

3. He left out the “but” in verse 17

B. The Woman’s Response – Adding & Subtracting from God’s Word (Vs. 2-3)

1. The woman left out the name of the tree - God had used it’s name

a. Not calling a thing what it is is deceiving

b. Illustration: “It is not really a lie, just a little white lie”

c. Illustration: “It’s not an abortion, only discarding of an unwanted pregnancy”

d. Illustration: “I’m basically a good person, I deal with God in my own way”

2. The woman added the concept of touching the fruit – God did not say this

C. The Second Subtle Trick – The Serpent Denied God’s Word

1. God’s Word Stated:

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

2. The fact that God’s warning stated death meant nothing to the serpent

3. Satan said that God only feared that they would learn too much

4. This was the “killing blow”

a. Just twisting God’s Word was not enough

b. The serpent had to deny God’s Word – Called God a liar by stating: “ye shall be as gods”

5. This was the same temptation that led to Satan’s downfall:

 

Isaiah 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

Isaiah 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

 

6. As soon as a person begins to question God’s authority or deny God’s Word, he sets himself up as his own god.

a. Now he is deciding for himself the standards of truth and righteousness

b. God does not anymore set the rules, man does

 

Part III - Divine Preservation Of The Word Of God

 

I. The Eternal Origin Of Scripture

A. Christ While On Earth Said His Words Are Eternal

 

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

 

B. Christ On Earth Said His Words Were The Father’s Words

 

John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

 

C. Christ On Earth Said His Father’s Words Are Eternal

 

John 12:50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

 

D. In His Prayer For His Disciples States They Knew He Spoke From Father

 

John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

 

E. Christ Has The Words Of Eternal Life

 

John 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

John 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

John 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

 

F. The Bible Is For All Ages

 

Psalm 119:89 ¶For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

 

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

 

Romans 15:2 Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.

Romans 15:3 For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.

Romans 154 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

 

1. The Scripture Was Written During A Specific Time Period

2. The Scripture Is Not The Product Of Its Period – Eternal Plan Of God

3. When God Designed The Scripture – He Had All Of History In View

4. In Scripture God Speaks To Every Age

 

II. God’s Preservation Of The Scriptures

A. Because The Scriptures Are Eternally Relevant For Every Age

1. They Have Been Preserved Down Through The Ages

2. They Have Been Preserved For All Ages

B. Christ Proclaimed The Preservation Of Scripture At His Time On Earth

 

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.

 

Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

1. Christ Is Assuring Us That The Text At Christ Time Was Accurate

a. It Was A Trustworthy Representation Of The Text Moses & Others Wrote

b. Nothing Was Lost From The Text

c. Nothing Would Ever Be Lost From The Text

2. The Same God Preserves The New Testament Too

 

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

3. Implies That His Church Down Through The Ages Will Have His Words

4. Implies That We Will Have His Words Until Heaven & Earth Pass away

 

III. The Traditional – Or Masoretic Text of the Old Testament

A. A Great Revival Happened After Returning From Exile By The Holy Ghost

 

Zechariah 4:5 Then the angel that talked with me answered and said unto me, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.

Zechariah 4:6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.

 

1. The Law Taught Again In Jerusalem By Ezra

 

Ezra 7:10 For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments.

 

2. The Old Testament Was Were Gathered Together By Ezra & His Students

 

B. We Can See How The Old Testament Preserved Until Christ On Earth

1. Then It Was Firmly Established In Jewish History

2. Even When The Jews Rejected Christ – The OT Known

3. Jewish Scribes Copied The Texts faithfully Until The Reformation

C. The Earliest Scribes – Called Tannaim

1.Tannaim Copied The Text with accuracy

2.Tannaim Committed To Their Oral Tradition Of Copying  – Called Mishna

D. Earliest Succeeded By The Amoraim - Expositors

1. Copied The Text with accuracy

2. Produced Their Commentary – Talmud Commentary On The Mishna

[G. F. Moore, Cambridge, Mass.: Har­vard University Press. 1927, vol. 1]

E. The Amoraim Followed By The Masoretes - Traditionalists

1. Copied The Text with accuracy

2. They Put Earlier Oral Tradition Of Copying In Writing

3. Took Many Steps For Accuracy

a. Counted How Many Times Each Letter Occurs In Each Book

b. Vowel Points & Other Aids Introduced By Masoretes

4. The Masoretic Text Printed In 1488

a. The Psalms Printed In 1477

b. 1488 – First Hebrew OT Text Printed

c. Second Edition Printed In 1491 – Third In 1494

5. Translators Used This Text And Eventually The KJV

6. The Masoretic Text Divinely Inspired & Preserved To Us Today

The Ancestry Of Our English Bible, by Ira Price, 2nd Revised Edition, by W. A.  Irwin & A. P. Wikgren, New York: Harper, 1949, pp. 23‑27.

 

V. Other Old Testament Texts Produced

A. The Septuagint – Greek Translation 3rd Century BC

1. Supposedly Done By 70 Jews In Alexandria

2. Widely Used In Apostolic Times

B. The Latin Vulgate – By Jerome 405 AD

1. Not Used By Majority For A Long Time

2. Roman Catholic Church Recognized At Council Of Trent – 1546 AD

VI. The New Testament Given To Us In Greek

A. A Priesthood Of Believers

1.  During The Crucifixion – The OT Priesthood Gone

2. In NT Every Believer Is A Priest Under Christ

 

I Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

 

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

 

B. The Writing of the New Testament

1. Christ Revealed Himself In The NT With The Story Of His Ministry - Gospels

2. The Rest Of The NT – Commentary On His Ministry

 

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

 

C. On Pentecost This Was Fulfilled

1. The Holy Spirit Filled Them With The Message Of The Lord

2. Later Paul Was Converted – His Epistles Inspired – Reveals Mysteries

3. Then James, Peter, John, & Jude Were Inspired In Their Letters

4. Then Luke Was Inspired To Write The Acts Of The Holy Spirit

5. John Was Then Inspired To Write Words From Christ - Revelation

 

D. The New Testament Cannon – Gathering Into One Book By The Holy Spirit

1. The 1st New Testament Books To Be Assembled Together – Paul’s

a. Peter Said Paul’s Word’s Were Inspired

 

II Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

II Peter 3:16  As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

b. The Early Church Father Ignatius Acknowledged Paul’s Writings

2. The Gospels Were Gathered Together Before 170 AD

a. Tatian Wrote Diatessaron – 170AD

b. Harmony Of The Gospels – 170AD

c. He Only Used Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John

3. Before 200 AD Paul, Gospels, Acts, I Peter & I John – Before 200 AD

a. Writings Of Irenaeus, Clement Of Alexandria & Tertulian

b. They Thought Of It Egual To Old Testament

c. Tertulian First Called It New Testament – Adversus Prasian

4. II John, III John, II Peter, Hebrews, James, Jude, & Revelation

a. By 4th Century – Seen In Writings

b. Athanasius & Agustine

6. The Holy Spirit Rejected Some From The Cannon

a. The Shepherd Of Hermas

b. The Apocalypse Of Peter

c. The Epistle Of Barnabas

7. The Holy Spirit Gathered The 27 Book Cannon By A Priesthood Of Believers

 

VII. The New Testament Divinely Preserved By The Holy Spirit

A. The Holy Spirit Preserved Like He Did Putting Together The Cannon

B. True Believers Accepted True Readings – Rejected Bad Readings

C. Steps In Preservation During Manuscript Period

1. Many Trustworthy Copies Of Manuscripts Produced By Faithful Scribes

2. Untrustworthy Copies Not So Widely Read & Copied

a. They Were Popular For Only A Brief Time In History

b. In The Long Run – Went To Oblivion

c. The Special Holy Spirit Preservation Won Out In The End

D. There Is A Trustworthy Majority NT Manuscript Always Been In Greek

1. Text Preserved By God In The Greek Church

2. It Remained In Greek During The Byzantine Era – (452 to 1453 AD)

3. I Will Call It The Traditional Text

4. It Comes Down To Us From The Apostles To The KJV

5. No Other Translation Is Solely From This Majority Text

E. We Can See The Holy Spirit Preserving It – Printed And Widely Distributed

1. It Was Printed In 1516 AD

2. It Was Widely Distributed Through Europe During The Reformation

3. The First One To Work On It Was Erasmus

a. He Put It Together Very Fast – Had A Deadline

b. His Printer, Froben of Basle, Gave Him An Impossible Deadline

c. It Had Some Minor Errors Because Of The Haste

4. Stephanus Later Corrected And Printed It – 1550

5. Then Elzevir In 1550

6. It Is In Complete Agreement With The Majority Text

7. Became Known As The Textus Receptus – Received Text

8. It Was The Text Of The Reformers

F. The Holy Spirit Preservation – Eastern Manuscripts Printed In The West

1. Erasmus - Strong Influence From Roman Church To Use Jerome’s Text

2. Guided By The Holy Spirit To Use The Majority Text Preserved By God

 

Part IV - Eclecticism And Present Day Textual Criticism

 

Twenty five English translations of the Holy Bible have found a measure of acceptance among Christians of this era. Included in that number are: The American Standard Version, The New American Standard Bible, The New International Version, The Revised Standard Version, Today’s English Version, The Amplified Bible, Moffatt's New Trans­lation and the New Testament in Modern English (Phillips). In addition to these more widely accepted translations are those which are less well known. Another type of "Bible", is the paraphrase; A good example of the paraphrase is the Living Bible.

Many Christians are not aware of the fundamental difference between these recent translations and the King James Version. These people are under the impression that the newer versions simply update the language of the Bible, or render God's Word into the common speech of the day. When comparing a reading of the KJV with that of another translation, they are prone to remark, "It says the same thing in different words." Because the Modern Versions supposedly make God's Word easier to understand, some have put aside the KJV in favor of the newer translations.

I am not saying that recent translations are guilty of hiding their fundamental difference. This difference is explained in the translator's notes to the readers, The Preference, or some other literature accompanying the translation. Few people ever seriously study such material, and remain ignorant to the contrast between the old and new.

An example of a frank explanation of the basic manner, in which a New Version differs from the KJV, is found in the introduction to the Bible, a new translation by James Moffatt.

"The initial difficulties in making any such version are started by the text. Now the Traditional or "Masoretic" Text of the Old Testament, though of primary value, is often desperately corrupt…at points it is in such disrepair that no conjecture can heal it … wherever I was satisfied with some correction or conjecture which at least made tolerable sense, I preferred to adopt it. When the choice lay between a guess and a gap, I inclined to prefer the former … nearly every page contains some emendation of the traditional text in the interests of accuracy and point   very few … realize how uncertain and precarious is the Traditional Text of some Books in the Old Testament           Then, even after a more or less sound text has been secured, it has to be rendered into adequate English "[1]

And so far, Moffatt has discussed only the Old Testament! The basic problem, he says, is with the Text. In other words, the first challenge facing the translator is not "making God's Word easier to understand", but deciding what is God's Word in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages. The broad term used to describe this process is "Textual Criticism." This involves comparing the many existing manuscripts in an effort to determine as closely as possible the reading of the original auto­graphs.

Leaving, for the moment, Moffatt’s accusation as to the "Inferiority" of the Traditional Text or the Old Testament, we notice that the basic problem with the New Testament is identical:

"The rise of certain dissatisfaction with the version of 1611 came to a head during the last quarter of the nineteenth century the reasons were threefold:

 

a. The archaisms of a masterpiece in Elizabethan prose had become either unintelligible or misleading;

b. The advance of scholarship, which in the sixteenth century was quite immature, had opened up fresh methods of studying the diction and syntax of the dialects in which the Bible had been originally composed;

c. And, finally, the progress of Textual Criticism had reset the entire problem of the text.

 

A translation depends largely upon its text for its permanent value.... This "Received Text," or Textus Receptus, as it came afterwards to be called, lay before the revisers of 1611. It was, it could not but be, notoriously corrupt.

The Text from which the present translation has been made approximates to that of H. Von Soden of Berlin, whose critical edition of the Greek New Testament  .... appeared during the first decade of this century" [2]

So Moffatt has revealed the basic difference between his translation and that of the Authorized Version. The Authorized Version was translated from the Traditional Hebrew Text (The Masoretic Text), in the Old Testament and from the Textus Receptus in the New Testament. While admitting that the Masoretic Text was of "primary value'; nevertheless corrected it on nearly every page of the Old Testament. In the New Testament, he followed the Text developed by H. Von Soden. This Text would not be given a vote of confidence by scholars for instance, J. Harold Green Lee states, Von Soden's work is, "The greatest disappointment in modern textual criticism ... not always reliable or complete … bewilderingly complicated." [3]

The situation has changed little since Moffatt first copyrighted his translation in 1922. The preface of a more recent work, The New International Version, confirms that the fundamental contrast between the KJV and the modern translations is still the same, particularly in the New Testament:

For the Old Testament the Standard Hebrew Text, The Masoretic Text... was used throughout...The Greek Text used in translating the New Testament was an Eclectic one...where existing manuscripts differ, the translators made their choice of readings according to accepted principles of New Testament Textual Criticism. Foot­notes call attention to places where there was uncertainty about what the original text was. The best current printed texts of the Greek New Testament were used. [4]

The translators of the New International Version did not follow the Masoretic Text slavishly throughout the Old Testament. Rather, they consulted the Septuagint, the Vulgate, The Syriatic Peshitta, The Targums, and other early translations.

"Readings from these versions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful and where accepted principles of Textual Criticism showed that one or more of these Textual witnesses appeared to provide the correct reading. [5]

The New Testament was translated from an "Eclectic" Text. What this means is that no certain text' was considered the final authority. Instead, from "the best current printed texts of the Greek New Testament", the translators created a Text of their choosing.

The word Eclectic means selecting or choosing from various sources. Bruce Metzger describes the eclectic text as one in which the editor "follows now one and now another set of witnesses in accord with what is deemed to be the author's style or the exigencies of transcriptional hazards" [6]

"Textual criticism ... involves subjective judgment. By 'ecletic', they mean, in fact, free choice among readings.  The editor chooses that reading which commends itself to him as fitting the context...that weight of the manuscript is ignored.  The editing of an Eclectic Text rests on conjectures." [7]

Pickering continues: "An Eclecticism based solely on internal considerations is unacceptable for several reasons. It is unreasonable. It ignores the over 5,000 Greek Manuscripts now extant, to say nothing of patristic and versional evidence, except to call variant readings from them … It has no principled basis for reject­ing conjectional emendations. It has no history of the transmission of the Text.

Therefore, the choice between variants ultimately depends upon guesswork  .. Textual Criticism ceases to be a science and one is left wondering what is meant by 'sound principles' in the NIV preface." [8]

Daniel Seagraves Tells us:  “… These best current printed texts' from which choices were made as to the final text for the NIV" included the Text of  Nestle­, Aland and the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (UBSGNT),  The Revised Standard Version (R.S.V.) and the New English Bible (N.E.B.) are also admittedly based upon an eclectic text. But regardless of what may or may not be said in the literature accompanying any particular translation, virtually every translation produced since 1611 has been based upon such a text. The result is not only that widely different readings are found in the various versions, but that large numbers of words, portions of verses, entire verses, and larger sections of scripture found in the K.J.V. are either called into question or bluntly dropped from the text." [9]

 

Results of Eclecticism

Everett W. Fowler has carefully compared the Greek Text used by the translator of the KJV with other major printed Greek Texts translators have used during the past century. He tabulated only those differences which have a significant effect on the translation into English.

 

“ The Westcott and Hort Text has 2,288 differences from the received text that have any effect on translation. The Nestle Text has 2,212 and the Bible Societies Text has 2,077. There are 1,995 of these differences which are common to the three Greek Texts by comparison with the Received Text. Of the differences in the Bible Societies Text, 2,018 are identical to differences found in the Westcott and Hort Text." [10]

The most glaring and immediately noticeable differences between the received text of the KJV and the eclectic Texts of the newer translations are those which include several subsequent verses. Such an example is John 7:53-8:11. The King James Version, of course, includes this portion of scripture without question. But the NIV, while incorporating it into the text, prefaces the passage with the statement: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53-8:11". The New American Standard Bible (NASB) incorporates these verses in brackets, thus indicating, that there is some question as to their authenticity. The RSV ends John 7 with verse 52 and begins chapter 8 with verse 12. A footnote reads: "other ancient authorities add 7:53-8:11 either here or at the end of this Gospel or after Luke 21:38, with variations of the text." Moffatt includes the passage in brackets and offers this footnote: "It is uncertain to which, if any, of the canonical Gospels this fragment of primitive tradition originally belonged." The amplified Bible incorporates it into the text and explains in a footnote: John 7:53-8:11, is not found in the older manuscripts, but it sounds so like Christ, that we accept it as authentic, and feel that to omit it would be most unfortunate." Phillips includes the passage, but directs the reader to an appendix, where he says: "This passage has no place in the oldest manuscripts of John and is considered by most scholars to be an interpolation from some other source. Almost all scholars would agree that, although the story is out of place her, it is part of a genuine apostolic tradition." Today's English Version (TEV) offers the verses in question in brackets, which is the treatment it reserves for those verses "not in the oldest and best manuscripts of the New Testament."

Considering only these seven translations, then, it is clear that the result of the current methods of eclecticism is a startling phenomenon. One might think that if the NIV is correct in claiming some "Accepted Principles of New Testament Textual Criticism", these "accepted principles" would lead each scholar to the same, or at least to a very similar conclusion. But, in this case, the only thing upon which the various translators agree is their uncertainty.

The claim of the NIV that the "earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53-8:11" would lead the reader to conclude that the passage must surely be spurious. He would then be mystified as to why, if only "late and unreliable" manuscripts contained the text, the NIV translators choose to include it. Noticeable for its absence in this brief explanation of the NIV, is the infor­mation as to exactly which manuscripts fail to include the passage. The reader is left with only his confidence in the translators; his decision cannot be based on the manuscripts themselves, for the translators have not chosen to tell him which they are.

But we need not remain ignorant as to which are the "earliest and most reliable" manuscripts which do not contain John 7:53-8:11. As Burson has said, "The only uncial manuscripts which simply leave out the verses are the three following:

Aleph, Codex A, & Codex B." [11] These uncial manuscripts are those ancient manuscripts which were written in a style of capital letters we discussed in the last chapter. You will recall Aleph is (Alexandrinus), A is (Codex Sinaticus), and B is (Codex Vaticanus). We must note that the "accepted principles" of the NIV resulted in John 7:53-8.11 being included, but only under serious question.

The eclecticism of the RSV prompted the exclusion of the passage from the text and the statement that "other ancient authorities add 7:53-8:11 either here or at the end of this Gospel or after Luke 21:38 with variations of the text." Contrary to the NIV, the RSV does not tell the reader whether the other authorities are earlier or more or less reliable. The student of Scripture is left to guess as to the number of manuscripts which delete the passage and the number of those which include it. He does not know if those which include it are older or later. He must surely suspect, however, that the weight of testimony in favor of the text is quite weak, for the translators thought best to relate it to a footnote.

Moffatt's statement, "It is uncertain to which, if any, of the canonical Gospels this fragment or primitive tradition originally belonged leaves the reader in a quandary typical of the results of eclecticism is that Moffatt is certain only about his uncertainty. But whether or not it was originally included in any of the Gospels, Moffatt identifies the passage as a "fragment of Primitive Tradition." Moffatt's low opinion of the section must surely serve to prejudice the reader against its authenticity.

The translators of the Amplified Bible introduced an entirely new dilemma. They agree with the N.LV. that John 7.53-8:11, is not contained in the "older manuscripts but whereas the NIV further associated the earliest manuscripts with ultimate reliability, the Amplified Bible Asserts, "...But it sound so like Christ that we accept it as authentic and feel that to omit it would be most un­fortunate." In other words, even though the oldest (and presumably most reliable manuscripts fail to include the text, it is accepted because "it sounds so like Christ." This must surely strike the reader of scripture as an unstable and entirely subjective basis on which to determine the authenticity of Holy Scripture.

While Phillips agrees with the N IV and amplified Bible that the passage, "Has no place in the oldest manuscripts of John", he asserts that "almost all scholars would agree that it is part of a genuine Apostolic Tradition". Surely ranks the text higher than Moffatt's "fragment of primitive tradition", but it still leaves the reader with the uneasy feeling that John 7:53-8111 may be genuine tradition, but not inspired.

These contradictory results of Eclecticism in the New Testament could be repeated over many times but this one example alone serves to demonstrate the inconsistent results of the"accepted principles," currently in vogue. What, exactly, are those principles, and from whence did they originate?

 

The Origin of Present Day Textual Criticism

Without question, the fathers of the fathers of the methods of Textual Criticism in use are F. J. A. Hort and B.F. Westcott. As Greenlee says, "the textual theory of W. H. (Westcott - Hort) underlies virtually all subsequent work in New Testa­ment Textual Criticism." Who are these men?[12]

Westcott, the senior member of the team, was Hort's teacher at Trinity College, Cambridge. The two became lifelong friends, and collaborated for twenty-eight years in the production of a "Critical Edition of the Greek New Testament." [13]   Both were members of the committee for the Revised Version of 1881-85. Westcott and Hort had worked together in the development of their New Greek Text prior to the publication of the Revised Version (RV) and "The Revision Committee had very largely accepted this text, even before it's publication, as a basis for it's translation of the New Testament." [14]

There were of course those who had gone before Westcott-Hort in their effort to construct a Greek Text different from that upon which the KJV was based. Fowler explains:

"Westcott and Hort in their theory of the text built on the work of several earlier men, such as Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, who, from around 1775, published Greek Texts differing in many places from the Received Text." [15]

 

Westcott and Hort’s Theology

Before we consider the details of the Westcott-Hort view of Textual Criticism, let us first address the issue of their theological stance, for "No one can translate the Holy Scriptures without the theological views of the translator having some influence and effect on the translation made. The same thing is true of one who prepares a Greek Text." [16] We have already seen the truth of this statement, in the brief comparison of the treatment accorded John 7:53-8:11, by various trans­lators.

Hort's view of Biblical Inspiration is clearly seen by his own statements. In an October 21, 1858 letter to Rev. Rowland Williams, Hort said, "Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible" [17]

On April 3, 1860, Hort wrote to Rev. John Ellerton: "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with...my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswer­able if so it opens up a new period". [18]       

Hort's fascination with Darwin's theory of evolution was accompanied by an attraction to Mariolatry. On October 17, 1865, he wrote Westcott. "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus' worship have very much in common in their causes and their results".  [19]

His firm commitment to the Roman Catholic concept of Priesthood is revealed in a letter to Dr. Lightfoot, dated October 26, 1867: "But you know I am a staunch sacerdotalist."  This well explains his words to Westcott: "But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of Priesthood." [20]

Evidently, even Westcott and Lightfoot were shocked by Hort's lack of sympathy for the Reformation and Resultant Protestantism. On September 23, 1864, he wrote to Westcott on the subject: "...I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so long ago by expressing a belief that 'Protestantism' is only parenthetical and temporary." [21]

His unorthodox view of the Doctrine of Original Sin is seen in Hort's letter to Mr. John Ellerton: "I'm inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden' (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants as Coleridge justly argues." [22]

Writing to the same man on July 6, 1848, Hort again evidenced his preference for the Roman Catholic Doctrines: "The pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to , the truth than the Evangelical..." [23]

One of the members of the Revision Committee was the Unitarian G. Vance Smith, who denied the Deity of Jesus Christ. Hort considered Smith's membership on the Committee as a plus. Writing to Lightfoot, he said, "It is, I think, difficult to measure the weight of acceptance won before hand for the revision by the single fact of our welcoming an Unitarian." [24]

But not only did Hort have strong sympathies for Romanism, Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and Unitarianism, as well as a revulsion for Protestantism, he also seemed to have a predetermined aversion to the Majority Text of the Greek New Testament. When he was but twenty-three years old, he wrote to a friend: "I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of Texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus - think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late manuscripts, it is a blessing there are such early ones." [25]

It was scarcely more than a year later that Westcott and Hort agreed upon a plan to produce a Revised Greek Text. Thus, As Pickering notes, There seems from the first to have been a prejudice against the Text reflected in the vast majority of manuscripts. ­

"...Though uninformed, by his own admission, Hort conceived a personal animosity for the Textus Receptus, and only because it was based entirely, as he thought, on late manuscripts. It appears Hort did not arrive at his theory through unpre­judiced intercourse with the facts. Rather, he deliberately set out to construct a theory that would vindicate his preconceived animosity for the Received Text." [26]

As the other half of the team which produced the reconstructed Greek Text of the New Testament," [27](17) Westcott was in full sympathy with Hort's views. His attachment to the practices of Roman Catholicism is seen in a letter he wrote to his fiancée from France in 1847" "After leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighboring hill.... fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling place; _ and behind a screen was a 'Pieta' the size of life...had I been alone I could have knelt for hours." [28]

Westcott's rationalism is demonstrated in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury on March 4, 1890. "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal History - I could never under­stand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." [29]

Was either of these two men more responsible than the other for the production of the New Greek Text? Pickering discusses that issue. "Although Brooke Fess Westcott identified himself fully with the project and the results, it is generally understood that it was mainly Fenton John Anthony Hort who developed the theory and composed the introduction in their two volume work." [30]

But why must we concern ourselves with the theories of Textual Criticism developed by men a century ago? Simply because current theory, with it's resultant eclec­ticism, is little different from that of Westcott-Hort. Elton Jay Epp discussed what he call The Twentieth Century Interlude In New Testament Textual Criticism.

"Every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates...that we have made little progress in Textual Theory since Westcott Hort; that we simply do not know how to make a definitive determination as to what the best text is; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries; and, accordingly, that the Westcott Hort kind of Text has maintained it's dominant position largely by default. Gunthur Zunte enforces the point in a slightly different way when be says that the agreement between our modern editions does not mean that we have recovered the original text. It is due to the simple fact that their editors...follow one narrow section of the evidence, namely, the non-Western old uncials. This lack of progress toward a theory and history of the earliest New Testament Text is a strong indication that the twentieth century has been an interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism." [31]

Since there are various Greek Texts currently on the market, one might be led to believe that significant progress has been made in this area, and that each of these texts makes some giant stride toward regaining the reading of the original autographs. But, as Pickering says, "The two most popular manual editions of the Greek Text today, Nestle-Atland and UBS. (United Bible Society) really vary little from the Westcott-Hort Text. The recent versions; RSV,W&B, etc. also vary little from Westcott-Hort Text" [32]

Hort may have had an hatred for the Textus Receptus of his day, but, according to K. W. Clark, he despised the one to hold to the others “The Westcott­ Hort Text has become today our Textus Receptus. We have been freed from the one only to become captivated by the other...the psychological chains so recently broken from our father's have again been forged upon us, even more strongly... psychologically it is now difficult to approach the textual problem with free and independent mind." [33]

The lack of Textual progress and the slavish manner in which the current texts follow the Principles of Westcott-Hort Text is easily seen in the simple mathema­tical comparison prepared by Fowler. While the Westcot-Hort Text, the Nestle Text, and the Bible Societies Text differ in varying amounts from the Received Text. (2,288; 2,212; and 2,077 differences respectively, in only those variations which have a significant effect on the translation into English). 1,995 of these differences are common to the three Greek Texts by comparisons with the Received Text" [34]

 

Westcot-Hort Theory

What are those principles developed by Westcott-Hort, so readily accepted by the majority of the Revisers of 1881, and closely followed by Textual Critics to this day?

The first thing we would note about the system of Westcott-Hort was their belief that the task of determining the original text of the New Testament was identical to that of reconstructing the original text of any other ancient word, as Fowler says, "By their own published statements they acted on the basis of the natural man's view of the New Testament Text, priding themselves on treating the Text of the New Testament as they would any other ancient book. In the introduction of of their Greek New Testament they wrote, '?or ourselves we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient Texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety,.and antiquity."[35]

E. C. Colwell reveals that Hort's theory of the methods which should be used to reconstruct the original text of Scripture is fully acceptable to the academic community as valid to determine the original readings of the classics. " . . . The contents of the so-called 'classical literature' - The writings of ancient Greece and Rome were determined in this fashion; and the contents of the Bible are determined in the same way. Students who specialize in English Literature learn it's techniques to establish as accurate text of Chaucer's poems; student of Cicero, Caesar, Homer and Virgil are forced to use either the methods of the results of Textual Criticism ... no matter what book maybe the object of this study, the methods and techniques employed are the same.. .Textual Criticism of the Bible is not a thing apart. In a university seminar which attempts to establish the original wording of Chaucer’s poems,  F.J.A. Hort's exposition of the methods employed in Textual Criticism of the New Testament is required reading." [36]

But there is serious question as to whether the Holy Scriptures and profane liter­ature can be placed on an equal basis at any point, including methods used to determine the original text. Edward Hills says, "If, now, the Christian Church has been correct down through the ages in her fundamental attitude toward the Old and New Testaments, if the doctrines of divine inspiration and providential preservation of these Scriptures are true doctrines, then the Textual Criticism of the New Testament is different from that of the uninspired writings of an­tiquity. The Textual Criticism of any book must take into account the conditions under which the original manuscripts were written and also those under which the copies of these manuscripts were made and preserved. But if the doctrines of the Divine Inspiration and Providential Preservation of the Scriptures are true, then the original New Testament manuscripts were written under special conditions, under the inspiration of God, and the copies were made and preserved under social conditions under the singular care and providence of God." [37]

Hills further talks about these two methods : "The Consistently Christian Method and the "Naturalistic Method." These two methods deal with the same materials, the same Greek Manuscripts, and the same translations and Bibical Quotations, but they interpret these materials differently. The consistently Christian method interprets the materials of New Testament Textual Criticism in accordance with the Doctrines of the Divine Inspiration and Providential Preserva­tion of the Scriptures. The Naturalistic Method interprets these same materials in accordance with its own doctrine that the New Testament is nothing more than a human book" [38]

Just what exactly are these "Naturalistic methods used by Westcott-Hort and most Textual Critics since that time? Greenlee sums them up "...The reading which is at first glance harder to understand in the context often proves to be original. The reading from which the other readings could most likely have developed is to be preferred as the original intentional changes were more likely to be addi­tions rather than omissions; thus a shorter reading is generally preferable" [39]

"We might anticipate that the theory of Textual Criticism used to restore the ancient texts would be quite involved and complicated, and that it would always tend to lead to the same results, regardless of which scholar applied it. But the opposite is true. The "rules" are quite brief and tend to produce conflicting results restated, the principles are as follows:

 

1.) The hardest reading is to be preferred.

2.) The reading from which it is most likely that other readings could have been developed is to be preferred.

3.) The shorter reading is to be preferred.

 

These are the basic principles of the Westcott-Hort Theory of Textual Criticism and also of most Textual Critics today. If they are faulty, the entire system crumbles." [40]

We have to remember that Hort who was mostly responsible for the above theory, had a commitment to the inferiority of the majority Text, and superiority of the minority Text. The minority Text is represented by the few early Uncials.

Hort’s History of the Text

Mr. Pickering explains the predicament Hort must have found himself in: "As the years went by, Hort must have seen that to achieve his end, he had to have a con­vincing history of the text, He had to be able to explain why essentially only one type of text was to be found in the mass of later manuscripts and show how this explanation justified the rejection of this type of text" [41]

Hort's proposed Theoretical History is described by Greenlee as follows: "Variants come into the New Testament at a very early stage, at which the scribes felt free to change the text, especially the Gospels, in accordance with other traditions which wherein circulation or to agree with a parallel account, or to substitute synonyms, paraphrase a sentence, and to make other variations. Thus by the second Century the 'Western' Text had arisen, characterized by extensive variations from the original text  although this text is very early in origin, the principles of intrinsic probability weigh against it in general. It is generally longer than the preferred text. In a number of notable instances, however, it has a shorter reading, in which the western text alone may have preserved the original ..In another area a different influence was being brought to bear upon the text. -­Alexandria was the home of criticism of the Greek Classics. Here the New Testament manuscripts were looked upon with literary eyes; the unsophisticated style of spoken Greek and the literary and grammatical imperfections of the New Testament authors were altered by stylistic changes thus the" Alexandrian" Text is characterized.

After Christianity attained official status in the fourth century, attempts began to be made, officially or unofficially, to deal with the divergences in the Text. Aiming at combining readings where appropriate, removing obscurities, harmonizing parallels, and in general, to produce a smooth text free from difficulties. Thus came the' Syrian' Text, which was smooth and sensible, yet lacking in the vigor and occasional ruggedness of the original.

One numerically small group of witnesses seems to have escaped the corruptions of all three other text types and to have preserved the text virtually in it's original form. This is the' Neutral' Text .. It is represented especially in the agreement of B (Codex Vadicanus) and (Aleph), together with a few other witnesses. Sometimes the secondary witnesses desert the Neutral Text to follow an Alexandrian Variant, leaving the original Text in B and (Aleph) with very little additional support. The Text of B, moreover, is so superior that it's text must always be given close attention, and in frequent instances the Text of B is decisive over all other witnesses. The text of Westcott-Hort is therefore an essentially 'Neutral or B (Aleph) Text, or even a 'B' Text"[42]

Since this "History of the Text" is not and can not be proven by fact, we should take careful examination of its statements.

First his statement, "Variants come into the New Testament at a very early stage, at which time scribes felt free to change the text." Now Metzger theorizes. "Because the number of Christians increased rapidly during the first centuries, many additional copies of the Scriptures were sought... Speed or production some­time outran accuracy of executions" [43]

So, while Metzger agrees that variants were introduced early, he offers a different explanation.  Rather than cause or variants being scribes who felt free to change the text, it is the speed with which the copies were made that supposedly resulted in errors.  To add even further assumptions to the theory of the History of the Early Text, Gordon Fee, postulates a "More copies mean more errors, unless there were to be a systematic attempt to correct subsequent copies against earlier ones. But this is precisely not what one would expect in the earliest period, when:

 

a. Copies would not have been made by trained scribes

b. Such copies were being made for pragmatic reasons, not necessarily with a sense of copying Scripture

c. The earliest copies were probably very early carried away from their place or origin (or first destination)" [44]

 

Later, Fee admits that he is theorizing "What we theorized above the earliest copies (not made by trained scribes, made for practical reasons. and each book transmitted independently over a widely scattered geography) seems in fact to have been the case." [45]

Now in addition to the possibility of numerous variants resulting from scribes who "felt free to change the text", and from the "speed or production", we have three new considerations: 1.  Untrained scribes

2.  Copies being made by those who failed to realize that they were copying the Word of God

3. Copies being transported far away from the place of their place of origin or first destination (through what the later would have to do with the rise of variants escapes me)

In view of his frank confession that these three points are theory, it is interest­ing that Fee, in his rejoinder says. ..."Anything done at the theoretical level is just that--theoretical, and nothing more." [46]  In fact. all attempts to reconstruct the history of the Early Text must be theor­etical, they can be nothing else. There is no factual recorded history of the transmission of the early text preserved for us from that era.

But are these suppositions reasonable? Is it logical to think that early scribes changed the text when they felt it was the right thing to do? Were early Christians in such a rush to obtain copies that they were willing to sacrifice accuracy? Were the scribes untrained? Were those engaged in copying Scriptures unaware of the Holy task?

 

Part IV – Satan Sewing Tares Among God’s Wheat

Romans 10:17 …. faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

Matthew 13:3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

Matthew 13:4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

Matthew 13:5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:

Matthew 13:6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

Matthew 13:7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:

Matthew 13:8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

 

Matthew 13:18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.

Matthew 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

Matthew 13:20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;

Matthew 13:21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. {offended: he relapseth, or, falleth into sin}

Matthew 13:22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

Matthew 13:23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

 

 

Parable Of The Soils – Matthew 13:3-23

Parable

Interpretation

Behold, A Sower Went Forth To Sow…

…Some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

…When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart

…Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth

… He that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended

… Some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:

…He that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

…He that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

 

Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

Matthew 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

Matthew 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

Matthew 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

Matthew 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

Matthew 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

Matthew 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

 

Matthew 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

Matthew 13:37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

Matthew 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

Matthew 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

Matthew 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

Matthew 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; {things…: or, scandals}

Matthew 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13:43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

Parable of the Wheat & Tares

The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a:

Parable

Interpretation

Man which sowed good seed in his field:

He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom

(Both Are The Seed of the Woman)

But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat

… But the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil

(Both Are The Seed of the Serpent)

When the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also

So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

… The harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

Matthew 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

Matthew 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; {things…: or, scandals}

Matthew 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13:43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

The Battle of the Seeds Is Still On.  Can We See That Satan Is Sowing Seeds Trying To Corrupt God’s Kingdom With Translations From Perverted & Man-Made Manuscripts?



[1]  James Moffatt, The Bible, A New Translation (New York and London: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1935) Pg. XIX, XX.

 

[2]  James Moffatt, The Bible, A New Translation (New York and London: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1935) Pg. XI, XX

 

[3]  J. Harold Greenlee; Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, (Grand Rapids, Mi.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1964) Pg. 83-84

 

[4]  The Holy Bible, NIV, (Grand Rapids Mi.: 1978) Pg. VIII, IX.

 

[5]  Ibid. Pg. IX

 

[6]  Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (New York and London,: Oxford University Press; 1964) Pg. 175

 

[7]  Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text (Nashville, Tn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers 1980) Pg. 23-26

 

[8]  Ibid Pg. 23-26

 

[9]  Daniel L. Seagraves, The Search For The Word Of God, (Self Published, 1982) Pg. 12

 

[10]  Everett W. Fowler, Evaluating Versions of the New Testament (Watertown, Wi.: Maranatha Baptist Press, 1981) Pg. 10 

 

[11] David Otis Fuller; Counterfeit or Genuine, (Grand Rapids, Mi: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1978) Pg. 144

 

[12]  Harold Greenleee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, (Grand Rapids, Mi: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1964) Pg. 78

 

[13]  Encyclopedia Britannica, 1970 ed. Hort, Fenton John Anthony

 

[14]  Ibid

 

[15]  Everett  W. Fowler, Evaluating Versions of the New Testament (Watertown, Wi.: Maranatha Baptist Press,1981) Pg. 4

 

[16] Ibid Pg. 1-2

 

[17]  David Otis Fuller, Which Bible?, (Grand Rapids Michigan, Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975) Pg. 278

 

[18]  Ibid

 

[19] Ibid Pg. 279

 

[20]  David Otis Fuller, Which Bible?,      Grand Rapids, Mi., Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975) Pg. 278.

 

[21] Ibid

 

[22] Ibid

 

[23] Ibid Pg. 280

 

[24] Ibid

 

[25] Ibid

 

[26] Wilber N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text (Nashville, Tn.;

 

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1980) Pg. 31-32

 

[27]  Encyclopedia Britannica 1970 ed. S.V. Hort, Fenton John Anthony

 

[28] Fuller; Which Bible (Grand Rapids, Mi.., (Grand Rapids International Publishers 1975) Pg. 278

 

[29]  Ibid Pg. 280

 

[30]  Wilber N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text. 1980, Thomas Nelson

      Pg. 279

 

[31]  Quoted by Zane C. Hodes in "Modern Textual Criticism and Majority Text". .

 

      Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21, no. 2 ( June 1978)

 

[32]  Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, (Tenn: Thomas Nelson Publisher, 1980) Pg. 28

 

[33]  Ibid Pg. 20

 

[34] Everett W. Fowler, Evaluating Versions of the New Testament, (Watertown, Wi.: Maranatha Baptist Press, 1981) Pg. 9

 

[35]  Ibid) P 89

 

[36]  Ernest Cadman Colwell; The Study of the Bible (Chicago; University of Chicago

 

            Press 1964) Pg. 39-40

 

[37]  Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, (Iowa., Christian Research Press, 1979) Pg. 2

 

[38] Ibid Pg. 3

 

[39] Greenlee; Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Mi., William B. Eerdman, 1964) Pg. 78

 

[40]  Seagraves, Daniel, In Search For the Word of God, (Stockton, CA: Self Published, 1976),  Pg. 26

 

[41] Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, (Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publisher, 1980) Pg. 28

 

[42]  Greenlee, Introduction To New Testament Textual Criticism, (Wi.:William B. Eerdman Publishing, 1964) Pg. 80-81

 

[43]  Mezger; The Text of the New Testament, 1964, Pg. 175

 

[44]  Gordon D. Fee, Modern Textual Criticism and the Majority Text,  A rejoinder, Journal of the Evangelical Theolical Society # 2 (June 1978) Pg. 158

 

[45]  Ibid Pg. 2

 

[46] Ibid Pg. 158