The New Testament was originally
written in koine Greek. The text that is passed down by Christians from
generation to generation throughout the ages and centuries and now given to us,
is the Traditional Text (Received Text / Textus Receptus). This text was
used as the basis for New Testament translation for the Authorised Version
(KJV), Geneva Bible, William Tyndale’s New Testament, and other Reformation era
Bibles.
In eighteenth and nineteenth century
Europe, there was a move towards unbelief and atheism in the approach towards
scholarship of our holy Scriptures. Unbelievers who did not believe the Bible
to be the Word of God nor the Divine Preservation of Scriptures, involved
themselves in the scholarship and publication of the Greek New Testament text.
With unbelief and a hatred towards the Traditional Text, those unbelievers
attempted to replace the Traditional Text with a Modern Critical Text based on
a set of self-defined, illogical, unreasonable, and even ridiculous textual
criticism methods.
The first widely used Modern Critical
Text was constructed by Westcott and Hort in 1881 and was used to translate the
Revised Version in the same year. That text was based on two fourth century
manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) that were effectively lost
for 1,400 years until their discoveries in the nineteenth century. Westcott and
Hort, two unbelievers who were also clergymen of the Church of England, hated
the Traditional Text and considered Sinaiticus and Vaticanus to
reflect the most accurate readings because of their supposed age. This is
despite both manuscripts having different readings from each other and at the
same time, showing signs of corrections. For example, the reading of Hebrews
1:3 in Vaticanus has been changed at least twice. Meanwhile, Sinaiticus
and Vaticanus also displayed a so-called Alexandrian text that is
different to the Traditional Text.
The accuracy of the Alexandrian text
is highly questionable and that text was used only in ancient Egypt before the
fifth century. It is important to note that the Arian heresy occurred in fourth
century Egypt, the time and place where the Alexandrian text was used. The
Alexandrian text contains missing verses (examples include Mark 16:9-20, John
5:4, John 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37) and readings (different from the Traditional
Text) that obscure the truth of the divinity of Christ (examples include Romans
14:10, 1 Timothy 3:16).
Since 1881, the Westcott and Hort
text has evolved into the Nestle-Aland text published by both the German Bible
Society and the United Bible Societies. The latest 28th edition of
the Nestle-Aland text was published in 2012. It is important to note that the
Modern Critical Text is always based on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
manuscripts and the Alexandrian text. Again since 1881 and beginning with the
Revised Version, the Modern Critical Text is used in the translation of almost
all modern versions.
Westcott and Hort introduced a set of
textual criticism methods that continued to be used and further developed by
modern unbelieving scholars such as Aland and Metzger. Hort believed in
Darwinian evolution while modern unbelieving scholars question if St. Peter was
the author of 2 Peter and at the same time, claim that six of the fourteen
Pauline Epistles (if Hebrews is included) were not written by St. Paul.
In this treatise, I will endeavour to
prove to you that the textual criticism methods first introduced by Westcott
and Hort and now used by modern unbelieving scholars, are illogical,
unreasonable, and even ridiculous. Should my conclusions be theologically
correct, there would be more important reasons to immediately reject nearly all
modern Bible versions.
Before I show you my proof, I
consider very important to write the following paragraph to help the reader
better understand the current situation about the Greek New Testament text.
The Traditional Text and the Modern
Critical Text have major and significant differences that they cannot both
simultaneously be the true representative of the original New Testament text.
Only one of the two is the accurate and reliable New Testament text that we can
read and trust. The doctrine of the Divine Preservation of Scriptures and the
requirement of faith in theological work prove that the Traditional Text is the
true representative of the Word of God. On the other hand, the Modern Critical
Text (based on the Alexandrian text that effectively disappeared for 1,400
years) is not the Word of God and is rejected by God.
Now, back to my proof. The four
principles of textual criticism introduced by Westcott and Hort and that
continued to be used by modern unbelieving scholars are: (i) reject the
Traditional Text, (ii) older manuscripts are preferred, (iii) shorter readings
are preferred, and (iv) difficult readings are preferred.
The very first principle clearly
shows the hatred Westcott and Hort had towards the Traditional Text. This same
principle is the foundation of the other three principles that show an
illogical and unreasonable bias towards favouring the Alexandrian text.
The existing manuscripts that reflect
the Traditional Text are generally later than the Sinai and Vatican
manuscripts. The Traditional Text has readings that are not found in the
Alexandrian text and examples include the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer in
Matthew 6:13, the conclusion of St. Mark’s Gospel in Mark 16:9-20, and the
woman caught in adultery recorded in John 7:53-8:11. The Traditional Text also
has smooth readings compared to the Alexandrian text, meaning that theology is
clearer and it is easier to gain theological understanding by reading the
Traditional Text.
Firstly, older manuscripts may not
contain the best and most accurate readings. Corruption of and wrestling with
the Word of God had taken place even during the time of the Apostles (2
Corinthians 2:17 and 2 Peter 3:16). As mentioned earlier, while Sinaiticus
and Vaticanus originated from the fourth century, they came from a place
and time of the Arian heresy. It is reasonable and important to take this into
account since the Alexandrian text has readings (different from the Traditional
Text) that appear to obscure the divinity of Christ. For example, in 1 Timothy
3:16, the Traditional Text contains the reading ‘God (θεος) was manifest in the flesh’, the
Alexandrian text however, reads ‘He (ος)
was manifest in the flesh’ instead.
Secondly, the ink with which a
reading is written, may not be as old as the manuscript. A fourth century
manuscript may contain a reading written in the nineteenth century. Sinaiticus
is a heavily corrected manuscript, a fact noted by von Tischendorf, the man who
discovered the same manuscript in 1844. While Sinaiticus does not
contain Mark 16:9-20, the original pages of the manuscript containing the
conclusion of St. Mark’s Gospel and the beginning of St. Luke’s Gospel have
been replaced. The present pages display an unusual font size that clearly show
a scribal attempt to fill all the blank space created by the absence of the
twelve verses. Meanwhile, as mentioned earlier, the reading of Hebrews 1:3 in Vaticanus
has been corrected at least twice.
Thirdly, the claim made by unbelieving
scholars since Westcott and Hort that difficult readings are original because
smooth readings are a result of over-zealous scribes endeavouring to clarify
difficult readings, is simply illogical and even ridiculous. The faithful
Christian recognises and acknowledges the holiness of the Word of God. He would
out of reverence, not make any change to the Word of God knowingly and
intentionally. This faithfulness is also shown by the Masorets, the Jews who
copied the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. On the other hand, it is
reasonably possible that unbelievers and heretics have the motivation and
intention to obscure originally smooth readings for their own benefit. The
original reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 found in the Traditional Text would prove
that the Arians (including the modern day self-claimed Witnesses) are in
complete error.
Fourthly, the reasons given by
Westcott and Hort to explain the presence of a vast number of Traditional Text
manuscripts (over 90% of presently available manuscripts reflect the
Traditional Text) and at the same time, to claim the Alexandrian text to be the
accurate text, are unreasonable and without historical evidence. Those two
unbelievers claimed that the Traditional Text and the Alexandrian text were
both present in the fourth century. However, a bishop of Antioch at that time
supposedly suppressed the Alexandrian text and promoted the Traditional Text.
Therefore, the Alexandrian text effectively disappeared for the next 1,400
years until the nineteenth century when Westcott and Hort brought the text back
to use. However, this claim has absolutely no historical basis and is something
purely imagined by Westcott and Hort. Even if the claim is true when it is
absolutely not, who are Westcott and Hort to say that the bishop had made a
mistake, especially during the time of the Arian heresy?
Fifthly, the Westcott and Hort
textual criticism methods are also influenced by Darwinian theory of evolution.
As mentioned earlier, Hort believed in Darwinian evolution and therefore, it is
not surprising that he and Westcott proposed to construct a genealogy tree for
all manuscripts. However, even after over a century, this proposal is
impossible to be completed.
Dear reader, the textual criticism
methods used by modern scholars are designed to reject the Traditional Text and
to unreasonably promote and favour the Arian and inaccurate Modern Critical
Text. Have you wondered why modern scholars since
Westcott and Hort reject and even hate the Traditional Text? The reason is very
clear: The Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged
sword and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Hebrews
4:12). Men subconsciously know that the Traditional Text is the Word of God and
unbelievers are pricked in the heart.
The Authorised Version is the most
accurate English translation of the Bible, faithfully translated by Christians
using the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Greek Traditional
Text of the New Testament. However, almost all modern versions since the
Revised Version of 1881, are not the Word of God because they are translated
from a Modern Critical Text that is not the Word of God. Since the Modern
Critical Text is a work of unbelievers, it is not surprising that the notes in
many modern versions are introducing doubts to the reader.
Dear reader, theological scholarship
cannot be independent of faith. You must now make a choice between the Word of
God and a work of unbelievers that is rejected by God. This is a decision you
must make and that would have very significant effects on your understanding of
Christianity.
No comments:
Post a Comment