Extra Chapter: What Others Have Said

This chapter is not found in the print or ebook edition:

Since there have been many other books written against WH and modern Bibles, I thought I would include a few choice quotes from a few of them here:

Concerning the preservation of the Scriptures, our faith is not in man, but in God. Even if the Reformation editors had fewer resources than those of more recent times, we know that the God who controls the times and the seasons was in control of His Holy Word. The infallible Scriptures were not hidden away in some monastic dungeon at the foot of Mt. Sinai or in a dusty corner of the Pope’s library. The infallible Scriptures were being published, read, and taught by God’s people. (David Cloud, Way of Life Literature www.way of life.org) Kirsopp Lake: “The Codex Sinaiticus has been corrected by so many hands that it affords a most interesting and intricate problem to the palaeographer who wishes to disentangle the various stages by which it has reached its present condition, and to distinguish the different scribes who have contributed to its development.” (Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanvs: The New Testament; the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, Kirsopp Lake, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911, p. xvii) “The dead hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies heavy upon us. In the early years of this century Kirsopp Lake described Hort’s work as a failure, though a glorious one. But Hort did not fail to reach his major goal. He dethroned the Textus Receptus. . . . Hort’s success in this task and the cogency of his tightly reasoned theory shaped— and still shapes —the thinking of those who approach the textual criticism of the NT through the English language.” (Ernest Cadman Colwell, “Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text,” The Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed. J.P. Hyatt, New York: Abingdon Press, 1965, p. 370)

An Understandable History of the Bible, by Samuel C. Gipp, says:

It was the genius of Fenton John Anthony Hort which rode to the rescue of the forlorn Roman Catholic text. This man used the same method to overthrow the authority of the Universal Text that Charles Darwin used to overthrow the fact of creation. He used a THEORY! . . . Just as was true for Darwin, common sense, all available facts, and the nature of God testified against his theory. Just as Darwin did, he collected minute scraps of evidence, then twisted and magnified his evidence, and theorized that he was right. Just as Darwin did, his theory was manufactured in his head, and INDEPENDENT of historical facts and evidence. Just as Darwin, his theory was overwhelmingly accepted by the overeducated men of his day who were looking for a way of overthrowing God’s authority. The theory of evolution was music to the ears of scientists, biologists, and college professors who resented the thought of creation. The sound of “God did it; that settles it” just naturally mustered all of the animosity and rebellion that is resident in the human flesh (Romans 7:18). When Darwin issued his theory to the world, the world was happy to believe the lie. The same thing was true of Christian scholarship. . . . The ironic thing is that Bible-believing Christian educators and preachers, who would never agree with his theology, have for years exalted his opinion of the Greek as nearly infallible. . . . Dr. Alfred Martin explains the delight of liberals which existed upon learning of Hort’s theory:

“Men who had long denied the infallibility of the Bible – and there are many such in the Church of England and in the independent churches – eagerly acclaimed a theory which they thought to be in harmony with their position.

“At precisely the time when liberalism was carrying the field in the English churches the theory of Westcott and Hort received wide acclaim. These are not isolated facts. Recent contributions of the subject – that is, in the present century – following mainly the Westcott-Hort principles have been made largely by men who deny the inspiration of the Bible.” (David Fuller, Which Bible? Grand Rapids International Publications, Grand Rapids, 1971, Second Edition, p. 265-266) . . . It can be safely said that if Westcott and Hort were not two Jesuit priests acting on secret orders from the Vatican, that two Jesuit priests acting under such orders could not have done a better job of overthrowing the authority of God’s true Bible and establishing the pro-Roman Catholic text of Alexandria, Egypt! (www.chick.com/)

After the Revised Version of the Bible was produced, secretly based on the WH text, one journal commented:

By the sole authority of textual criticism these men have dared to vote away some forty verses of the inspired Word. The Eunuch’s Baptismal Profession of Faith is gone; and the Angel of the Pool of Bethesda has vanished; but the Angel of the Agony remains – till the next Revision. The Heavenly Witnesses have departed, and no marginal note mourns their loss. The last twelve verses of St. Mark are detached from the rest of the Gospel, as if ready for removal as soon as Dean Burgon dies. The account of the woman taken in adultery is placed in brackets, awaiting excision. Many other passages have a mark set against them in the margin to show that, like forest trees, they are shortly destined for the critic’s axe. Who can tell when the destruction will cease? (Dublin Review, July 1881)

Jay P. Green Sr. said:

Truly God in His mercy did not leave His people to grope after the true New Testament text. Through the leading of God the Spirit He guided them to preserve it during the manuscript period. God brought this to pass through the working of His preserving and governing providence. First, many trustworthy copies were produced by faithful scribes. Secondly, these were read, used, and recopied by true believers when those original copies were worn out. Thirdly, untrustworthy copies (such as the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) were laid aside, not copied, but consigned to oblivion. Today there are more than 5,000 manuscripts and lectionaries in Greek as witnesses to the New Testament text. And 95% or more of these witness to the Received Text readings. (The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, by Jay P. Green, page x) It is another case of allowing age-old heretics to determine what God has said, buttressed by Westcott and Hort, the supposed textual critics who never collated a single manuscript before issuing their opinions as to what is and what is not Scripture. (Green, Unholy Hands, page 248).

Kenneth Clark said:

. . . 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 fathers have again been forged upon us, even more strongly. . . . Even the textual specialist finds it difficult to break the habit of evaluating every witness by the norm of this current textus receptus. His mind may have rejected the Westcott-Hort term ‘neutral,’ but his technical procedure still reflects the general acceptance of the text. . . . Psychologically it is now difficult to approach the textual problem with free and independent mind. (Clark, “Today’s Problems with the Critical Text of the New Testament,” Transitions in Biblical Scholarship, edited by J.C.R. Rylaarsdam, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968, pp. 158-160.)

Comments are closed.