Grace
Theological Journal 12.1 (1992) 21-50.
Copyright © 1992 by Grace Theological
Seminary.
Cited with permission.
INSPIRATION, PRESERVATION,
AND NEW TESTAMENT
TEXTUAL CRITICISM
DANIEL B.
WALLACE*
INTRODUCTION
THE
Bible has always been of central importance to evangelicals. It
not
only defines what we are to believe; it also tells us how we are
to
behave. A clear and faithful exposition of the scriptures has, histori-
cally, been at the heart of any relevant pastoral
ministry. In order for a
particular
passage to be applied legitimately, it must first be understood
accurately.
Before we ask "How does this text apply to me?" we must
ask
"What does this text mean?" And even before we ask "What does
this
text mean?" we must first ask, "What does this text say?" Determin-
ing what a text says is what textual criticism is
all about. In other words,
textual
criticism, as its prime objective, seeks to ascertain the very
wording
of the original. This is necessary to do with the books of the
Bible--as
with all literary documents of the ancient world-because the
originals
are no longer extant. Not only this, but of the more than five
thousand
manuscript copies of the Greek New Testament no two of
them
agree completely. It is essential, therefore, that anyone who
expounds
the Word of God be acquainted to some degree with the sci-
ence of textual criticism, if he or she is to
expound that Word faithfully.
The
relevance of textual criticism, however, is not shut up only to
those
who have acquaintance with Greek, nor only to those in explic-
itly expository ministries. Textual criticism is
relevant to every Chris-
tian, precisely because many of the textual
differences in Greek can be
translated
into another language. Thus the differences between the New
*Danie1
B. Wallace (B.A.,
logical
Seminary) is Assistant Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological
Seminary,
This article is a reprint of the
author's chapter by the same title in New
Testament
Essays in Honor of Homer
A. Kent, Jr.,
edited by Gary T. Meadors (Winona Lake, IN:
BMH,
1991). The Grace Theological Journal editorial committee felt that Professor
Wallace's
article was worthy of wider circulation and that it would benefit the
readership
of
the Journal.
22 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Testament
of the King James Version, for example, and that of the New
American
Standard Version are not just differences in the English; there
are
also differences in the Greek text behind the English-in fact, over
5,000
differences! And with the publication of the New King James New
Testament
in 19791 (in which the KJV was rendered in modern English),
the
translational differences are diminished while the textual differences
are
heightened. The average modern American Christian who lacks the
requisite
educational background to read Elizabethan English now has
no
excuse for not reading the (new) King James Version. In light of the
heavy
promotion by Thomas Nelson Publishers,2 that oft-asked ques-
tion, "What is the most accurate New
Testament?," is increasingly a
question
about a version's textual basis as much as it is of the transla-
tional philosophy behind it.
What is the textual difference, then, between
the (new) KJV NT and
other
modern translations? In a nutshell, most modern translations are
based
on a few ancient manuscripts, while the (new) KJV NT is based on
a
printed edition of the Greek New Testament (called the Textus
Recep-
tus or TR) which, in turn, was derived from the
majority of medieval
manuscripts
(known collectively as the majority text [MT] or Byzantine
text).
In one respect, then, the answer to the question "What is the most
accurate
New Testament?" turns on the question, "Which manuscripts
are
closest to the original-the few early ones or the many late ones?"
In this paper it is not my objective to answer
that question.3
Rather,
I wish to address an argument that has been used by TR/MT
advocates-an
argument which is especially persuasive among lay-
men.
The argument is unashamedly theological in nature: inspiration
and
preservation are intrinsically linked to one another and both are
intrinsically
linked to the TR/MT. That is to say, the doctrine of ver-
bal-plenary
inspiration necessitates the doctrine of providential preser-
vation of the text, and the doctrine of providential
preservation
necessarily
implies that the majority text (or the TR)4 is the faithful
1 The
New King James Bible, New Testament (
ers, 1979).
2 One of the promotional means of the
publisher is the sponsoring of concerts. On
approximately
18,000 people were in attendance. At the end of the concert, Dr. Arthur L.
Farstad, editor of the NKJV, promoted this
Bible. His chief "sales pitch" was text-critical
in
which he argued that Mark 16:9-20 was authentic and that modem translations, by
de-
leting it (or at least by casting doubts on its
authenticity), delete Christ's resurrection
from
Mark's gospel. His statement, however, was not altogether accurate, for although
there
is no resurrection appearance by Christ if the gospel ends at v 8, there is
still a res-
urrection! Whether intentional or not, the
impression left on the audience was that the
NKJV
is a more orthodox translation than other modem versions.
3 For a discussion of
this, see my article, "The Majority Text and the Original Text:
Are
They Identical?," BSac
148 (1991) 151-69.
4 This statement is not meant to imply
that MT = TR, but that within this school of
thought
are two divisions-those who hold that the printed edition of Erasmus (TR) is
NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM 23
replica
of the autographs. Inspiration (and inerrancy) is also used for
the
Byzantine text's correctness in two other ways: (1) only in the Byz-
antine text do we have an inerrant New Testament; (2)
if any portion
of
the New Testament is lost (no matter how small, even if only one
word),
then verbal-plenary inspiration is thereby falsified.
If
inspiration and preservation can legitimately be linked to the
text
of the New Testament in this way, then the (new) KJV NT is the
most
accurate translation and those who engage in an expository min-
istry should use this text alone and encourage their
audiences to do the
same.
But if this theological argument is not legitimate, then New Tes-
tament textual criticism needs to be approached on
other than a theo-
logical
a priori basis. And if so, then perhaps most modern translations
do
indeed have a more accurate textual basis after all.
Our
approach will be to deal first with the arguments from preser-
vation, then to deal with the arguments related more
directly to inspi-
ration
and inerrancy.5
I. PRESERVATION
A.
The Statement
On a popular level, the TR-advocating and
"King James only" fun-
damentalist pamphleteers have waged a holy war on
all who would use
any
modern version of the New Testament, or any Greek text based on
the
few ancient manuscripts rather than on the many late ones.6 Jasper
James
Ray is a highly influential representative of this approach.7 In his
the
original and those who hold that the reading of the majority of extant Greek
wit-
nesses
is the original.
5 This breakdown is somewhat artificial,
since the arguments from inspiration and
inerrancy
are closely tied to preservation as well. However, our organization is due
chiefly
to the fact that the arguments from preservation are more traditional and univer-
sal among TR/MT advocates, while the arguments from
inspiration/inerrancy are of
more
recent vintage and are more idiosyncratic.
6 In passing, Peter Ruckman
could be mentioned as the most extreme "King James
only"
advocate, going so far as to argue that even the Greek and Hebrew text need to
be
corrected
by the KJV! Cf. his The Christian's
Handbook of Manuscript Evidence (Pensa-
cola:
Pensacola Bible Institute, 1970) 115-38; Problem
Texts (
Bible
Institute, 1980) 46-48.
7 Not only has he influenced many laymen,
but David Otis Fuller dedicated the
book,
Counterfeit or Genuine[;] Mark 16? John
8?, of which he was the editor (2d ed.;
Missionary
Scholar of Junction City, Oregon, whose book, God Wrote Only One Bible,
moved
me to begin this fascinating faith-inspiring study" (p. v). Further, even
Zane C.
Hodges,
formerly professor of NT at Dallas Theological Seminary, and arguably the
prime
mover in the modern revival of the "Traditional Text," "admits
that it was the
reading
of Ray which began his investigation of textual criticism" (David D.
Shields,
"Recent
Attempts to Defend the Byzantine Text of the Greek New Testament" [Ph.D.
24
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
book,
God Wrote Only One Bible,8
Ray says that no modern version
may
properly be called the Bible,9 that salvation and spiritual growth
can
only come through versions based on the TR,10 and that Satan is
the
prime mover behind all versions based on the more ancient manu-
scripts.11
If Ray's view is correct, then those who use modern transla-
tions or a Greek New Testament based on the few
ancient manuscripts
are,
at best, dupes of the devil and, at worst, in danger of forfeiting
their
immortal souls.
Ray's chief argument on behalf of the TR is
based on preservation.
In
the following statements, notice how closely inspiration and preser-
vation are linked-and how both are linked to the Textus Receptus.
dissertation,
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary,
1985]
26. This is based on an interview Shields had with Hodges on
8
9 " A multiplicity of differing Bible
versions are in circulation today, resulting in a
state
of bewildering confusion. Some versions omit words, verses, phrases, and even
chapter
portions. ...Among these [versions] you'll not find the Bible God gave when
holy
men spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. . ."
(ibid., 1).
10 The following are representative statements:
"... the TEXTUS RECEP-
TUS
. . . is God's sure foundation on which to rest our eternal salvation"
(32). "It is im-
possible
to be saved without 'FAITH,' and perfect-saving-faith can only be produced by
the
'ONE' Bible God wrote, and that we find only in translations which agree with
the
Greek
Textus Receptus refused by
Westcott and Hort" (122). "Put poison
anywhere in
the
blood stream and the whole becomes poisoned. Just so with the Word of God. When
words
are added or subtracted, Bible inspiration is destroyed, and the spiritual
blood
stream
is poisoned. In this respect the revised Bibles in our day seem to have become
spiritual
guinea pigs [sic], with multiple hypodermic shots-in-the-arm by so called Doc-
tors of Divinity, who have used the serum of
scholasticism well mixed with modern free-
thinking
textual criticism. When the Bible words are tampered with, and substitution is
made,
the Bible becomes a dead thing with neither power to give or sustain life. Of
course,
even under these conditions, it is possible to build up church membership, and
report
many professions. But what about regeneration? Are they born again? No person
can
be born again without the Holy Spirit, and it is evident the Holy Spirit is not
going
to
use a poisoned blood stream to produce healthy christians.
Therefore, beware, beware,
lest
your faith become marred through the reading of corrupted Revised Versions of
the
Bible"
(9).
11 In his introduction, Ray states that he
"knows that the teaching of this book, re-
garding Textual Criticism, goes contrary to what
is being taught in almost every college,
seminary,
and Bible school. ...The reader may say, 'How can so many good, sincere ed-
ucated people be wrong?' Herein lies the 'mystery of
iniquity' (2 Thess. 2:7)" (ii). Later
he
argues: "Many of these men [who use modern versions] are true servants of
the Lord,
and
we should; with patience and love, try to reveal the truth to them. They have
been
'brain-washed'
by their teachers; who were 'brain-washed' by other teachers in a 'chain-
reaction'
on back to Westcott and Hart who, in 1881, 'switched' most of our seminaries
and
Bible schools from the dependable TEXTUS RECEPTUS to inferior manuscripts,
such
as codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
Of course this 'chain-reaction' could be
traced
on back to its beginning in Genesis 3:1, where (Satan) the serpent said unto
the
woman,
'Yea, hath God said?' In the humanistic theology of today we would hear some-
thing
like this: 'These words are not in the best manuscripts'" (101).
NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM 25
Ray
says, for example, that "the Textus Receptus . . . was given by the
inspiration
of God, and has been providentially preserved for us
today.”12
He further adds that "the writing of the Word of God by
inspiration
is no greater miracle than the miracle of its preservation in
the
Textus Receptus.”13 Preservation, then,
for Jasper James Ray, takes
place
on the same level as inspiration--i.e., extending to the very
words.14
Even in works which are dressed in more
scholarly garb, this
theological
presupposition (along with the witch-hunting invectives15)
is
still present. David Otis Fuller, for example, has edited several vol-
umes in which professors and Bible scholars have
contributed-all for
12 Ibid., 102.
13 Ibid., 104.
14 Further, inspiration and preservation
are linked to tradition-especially the tradi-
tion of the English Bible, for Ray argues: "The
Bible God wrote has been providentially
preserved
for us in the Greek Textus Receptus,
from which the King James Bible was
translated
in 1611. Any version of the Bible that does not agree with this text, is cer-
tainly founded upon corrupted manuscripts"
(ibid., 106). j
15 David Otis Fuller, for example, in Counterfeit or Genuine, speaks of
"bastard "
Bibles"
(10) and echoes J. J. Ray in condemning virtually all evangelical institutes of
higher
learning for using other than the Textus Receptus or the King James Version:
"This
is a David and Goliath battle with practically all of the evangelical
seminaries and
colleges,
Bible institutes, and Bible schools slavishly following essentially the
Westcott
and
Hort Greek Text and the Westcott and Hort theory, both of which are fallacious in
every
particular" (12). He adds further, as did Ray, that Satan is the
mastermind behind
this
defection from the King James and TR: "born-again Christians in this
twentieth cen-
tury are facing the most malicious and vicious
attack upon God's inspired Holy Word
since
the Garden of Eden. And this attack began in its modern form in the publication
of
the
Revised Version of the Scriptures in 1881 in
Donald A. Waite, a Dallas Seminary graduate,
argues in his The Theological Here-
sies of Westcott and Hort (Collings
wood, NJ: Bible for Today, 1979), that the two
bridge
dons were unregenerate, unsaved, apostate, and heretical (39-42). David D.
Shields
in his dissertation on "Recent Attempts to Defend the Byzantine Text of
the
Greek
New Testament," points out that "the evidence on which [Waite] bases
these con-
clusions often would indict most evangelical
Christians. Even in the author's perspective,
Westcott
and Hort have theological problems, but the extreme
severity of Waite's ap-
proach would declare anyone apostate and heretical who
does not hold to his line" (55).
Wilbur Pickering, another alumnus of Dallas
Seminary, and the president of the
Majority
Text Society, although normally not as prone as many others to such language,
does
sometimes imbibe in vitriolic speech. For example, in :his master's thesis,
"An Eval-
uation of the Contribution of John William Burgon to New Testament Textual Criticism"
(Dallas
Theological Seminary, 1968), he declares that the most ancient manuscripts
came
from a "sewer pipe" (93). In his book, The Identity of the New Testament Text
(Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 1977)-a book which has become the standard text in sup-
port
of the majority text-Pickering states, for example, that "Aleph and B have
lied"
and
that "Aleph is clearly a bigger liar than B" (126), and that all the
ancient manu-
scripts
on which modern critical texts are based are "convicted liars all"
(135).
has
toned down his language in his second edition (1980), perhaps due to book reviews
such
as R. A. Taylor's in JETS 20 (1977)
377-81, in which such "emotionally-loaded
language"
is seen as clouding the issue (379). (In this second edition he says that
"Aleph
26
GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
the
purpose of proving that the TR or MT is the best Greek New Tes-
tament. In Which Bible? he declares:
Naturalistic New Testament critics seem at last
to have reached the end
of the trail. Westcott and Hort's
broad highway, which appeared to lead
so quickly and smoothly to the original New Testament
text, has dwin-
dled down to a narrow foot
path and terminated finally in a thicket of
trees. For those who have followed it, there is
only one thing to do, and
that is to go back and begin the journey allover
again from the consis-
tently Christian starting
point; namely, the divine inspiration and provi-
dential preservation of Scripture.16
The sequel to Which Bible?, entitled True or
False?, is "DEDI-
CATED TO All lovers of the Book; who believe in the Verbal, Plenary
Inspiration
of the Scriptures; and who, of necessity [,] must believe in
the
Providential Preservation of the Scriptures through the centuries;
and
who hold that the Textus Receptus
(Traditional Text) is nearest to
the
Original Manuscripts."17
This theological refrain-the linking of
inspiration to preservation,
and
both to the majority text-got its major impetus from John William
Burgon. Burgon, a high
Church Anglican, Dean of Chichester, toward
the
end of the nineteenth century was both prolific and vituperative in
his
attacks against Westcott and Hort (the
duced the Greek text which stands, more or less,
behind all modern
and
B have . . . mistakes, . . . Aleph is clearly worse than B" [135], and the
ancient
manuscripts
are "blind guides all" [145].)
Theodore P. Letis,
editor of The Majority Text: Essays and
Reviews in the Continu-
ing Debate (Fort Wayne, IN: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies,
1987), seems to use
fulminatory
language against everybody, for he is in something of a theological no man's
land:
his volleys are directed not only at modem textual criticism, but also at
majority
text
advocates (since he advocates the TR)-and even against inerrantists!
He speaks, for
example,
of "the idolatrous affair that evangelicals are having with the red
herring of in-
errancy" (22); those who advocate using
modem-language Bibles (including the transla-
tors of the New King James Version) are "in
pragmatic league with the goddess of
modernity-Her
Majesty, Vicissitude" (81); virtually all modem translations imbibe in
Arianism (203); ad hominem arguments are everywhere to be
found in his book.
16Which
Bible?, 5th ed. (
1975)
8-9.
17 True
or False? The Westcott-Hort Textual Theory Examined,
ed. D. O. Fuller
(Grand
Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1973) 5. This linking of inspi-
ration
and preservation is also seen most clearly in Fuller's statement that "The
Scrip-
tures make it quite clear that He [God] is also well
able to insure the providential
preservation
of His own Word through the ages, and that He is the Author and Preserver
of
the Divine Revelation. The Bible cannot be accounted for in any other way. It
claims
to
be 'Theopneustos,' 'God-breathed' (II Timothy
cant
that Fuller gives no proof-text for preservation here, for to him if the Bible
is in-
spired it must be providentially preserved.
NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM 27
translations).
There is no question that Burgon is the most
influential
writer
on behalf of the TR-indeed, that he is the father of the majority
text
movement-for he is quoted with extreme approbation by virtually
every
TR/MT advocate.18 He argued that "there exists no reason for
supposing
that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to
mankind
the Scriptures of Truth, straightway abdicated His office; took
no
further care of His work; abandoned those precious writings to their
fate."19
Wilbur Pickering, president of the Majority Text
Society, has con-
tinued this type of argument into the present debate.
In his 1968 master's
thesis
done at Dallas Seminary (" An Evaluation of the Contribution of
John
William Burgon to New Testament Textual
Criticism") he argued
that
this doctrine is "most important" and "what one believes does
make
a
difference.”20 Further, he linked the two together in such a way
that a
denial
of one necessarily entails a denial of the other: "the doctrine of
Divine
Preservation of the New Testament Text depends upon the inter-
pretation of the evidence which recognizes the
Traditional Text to be the
continuation
of the autographa.”21 In other words,
saying:
"if we reject the majority text view, we reject the doctrine of
preservation.”22
E. F. Hills, who wrote his doctoral dissertation
on NT textual
criticism
at
If the doctrine of the Divine inspiration of the
Old and New Testament
scriptures is a true doctrine, the doctrine of
providential preservation of
the scriptures must also be a true doctrine. It
must be that down through
the centuries God has exercised a special
providential control over the
18 In Shields' dissertation ("Recent
Attempts"), the first three chapters are entitled
"The
Popular Defenders of the Textus Receptus,"
"The Scholarly Defenders of the
tus Receptus," and
"The Defenders of the Majority Text." In each chapter there is a sec-
tion (or two) on Burgon
and the impetus he provided for the various groups (there is
even
a Dean Burgon Society which quite explicitly promotes
his views). One may, with
some
justification, feel that very little new has been said by MT/TR advocates after
Burgon.
19 J. W. Burgon,
The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Estab-
lished (arranged, completed, and edited by E. Miller;
1896)
12.
20
Testament
Textual Criticism," 86.
21 Ibid., 91.
22 More recently,
he
argued that a denial of one was a denial of the other: "Are we to say that
God was un-
able
to protect the text of Mark or that He just couldn't be bothered? I see no
other alter-
native-either
He didn't care or He was helpless. And either option is fatal to the claim
that
Mark's Gospel is 'God-breathed'" ("Mark 16:9-20 and the Doctrine of
Inspiration"
[a
paper circulated to members of the Majority Text Society, September, 1988] 1).
28
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
copying of the scriptures and the preservation
and use of the copies, so
that trustworthy representatives of the original
text have been available
to God's people in every age.23
Hills
adds that "all orthodox Christians, all Christians who show due
regard
for the Divine inspiration and providential preservation of
Scripture,
must agree with Burgon on this matter.”24
These writers are just the tip of the iceberg.
Indeed, so universal is
the
doctrinal underpinning of preservation found among MT/TR advo-
cates that Bart Ehrman
could say:
One cannot read the literature produced by the
various advocates of the
Majority text without being impressed by a
remarkable theological con-
currence. To one degree or
another, they all (to my knowledge, without
exception) affirm that God's inspiration of an
inerrant Bible required His
preservation of its text.25
And
even Theo Letis, a TR advocate himself, flatly
states, "The only
reason
that the Majority Text proponents even argue for the Byzantine
text
is because theologically they have both a verbal view of inspira-
tion-and as a hidden agenda an unexpressed (at least
as part of their
present
method) belief in providential preservation.”26
23 E. F. Hills, The King James Version Defended! (4th ed.;
Research,
1984) 2.
24 "The Magnificent Burgon," in Which
Bible?, 90.
25 Bart D. Ehrman,
"New Testament Textual Criticism: Quest for Methodology"
(M.Div. thesis, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981) 40.
Shields echoes the same
viewpoint
in his dissertation ("Recent Attempts") where in each of his first
three chapters
in
which he interacts with various proponents of MT/TR, there is extensive
material on
"theological
perspective," including inspiration and providential preservation. He sum-
marizes that "the strong theological basis
from which all advocates for primacy [of the
Byzantine
text-type] argue is a poor starting-point for determining the text of the New
Testament
and creates a history of the text which contradicts known facts" (p. 3 of ab-
stract). Since Ehrman wrote
his thesis and Shields his dissertation, Theo Letis
has altered
this
picture to some degree: he is the first member of the MT/TR school (as far as I
am
aware)
who, though affirming providential preservation, denies inerrancy (see n. 15).
26 Letis, Continuing
Debate, 9. One might argue that Zane Hodges does not have
such
an agenda and that therefore he is an exception to the rule. At one point, in
fact,
Hodges
himself seems to say this. In his interaction with Gordon Fee over this issue,
Hodges
states: "To speak of 'all modem advocates of the TR' as having a 'hidden
agenda'
is
an impermissible argumentum ad hominem. It also is not true. I, for one, would be
quite
happy to accept the Westcott-Hort text as it stands
if I thought that the grounds on
which
it rested were adequate. . . . My agenda at least-and I speak here only for my-
self-is
precisely what I have expressed it to be-namely, a call to re-examine the
claims
of the majority text in the light of increasingly perceived deficiencies of the
the-
ory that underlies today's editions. I happen to
think that a man's theology can affect
his
textual theories, but I am perfectly willing to entertain sensible arguments
from any
NEW TEST AMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM 29
To sum up: on a lay level, as well as on a
pseudo-scholarly level,
and
even on a scholarly level, inspiration, preservation and the TR/MT
are
linked intrinsically. According to Byzantine text advocates, you
cannot
have one without the other.
B.
The Critique
There are a number of serious problems with the
theological
premise
of Byzantine text advocates. Generally speaking, however,
they
all fall into one of three groups: (1) a question-begging approach,
(2)
faulty assumptions, and (3) a non-biblical doctrinal basis. As will be
readily
seen, there is a great deal of overlap between these three areas.
1.
Question-Begging Approach
Majority text proponents beg the question for
their view on at
least
three fronts.
a. What do you count? First, they only count
Greek manu-
scripts.
Yet, there are almost twice as many Latin NT manuscripts as
there
are Greek (over 10,000 to approximately 5,500). If the Latin
quarter
no matter what theology they may be associated with" ("Modern Textual
Criti-
cism and the Majority Text: A Response," JETS 21 [1978] 145-46).
As Ehrman points out,
however, there are two objections to Hodges' alleged neutral
stance:
(1) "While Hodges is right that some theological presuppositions may have
no
effect
on one's approach toward textual criticism, it is equally clear that others
certainly
will.
If one affirms as a theological 'given' that God would not allow a corrupted
form of
the
New Testament text to be widely accepted, then, despite disclaimers, any
argument to
the
contrary must be rejected out of hand. For the sake of personal integrity an
individual
such
as Hodges may adduce strictly historical arguments for his position; but if one
as-
sumes this doctrine to be true and refuses to
reconsider, then any textual method that
does
violence to it will be automatically rejected. For this reason, Hodges cannot
'enter-
tain sensible arguments from any quarter no matter
what theology they may be associated
with'"
(49-50). (2) "The other problem with Hodges's position is that he himself
does
not
hold to it consistently. In another work ["A Defense of the Majority
Text,"
Seminary,
n.d., p. 18], Hodges openly states that his
historical (note, historical, not theo-
logical)
arguments for the superiority of the Majority text will appeal only to those of
similar
theological conviction. . . ." (50). Not only this, but elsewhere Hodges
rejects
Hort's views because of their rationalistic
presuppositions, arguing that the "New Testa-
ment text is not like any other ancient text"
and that "the logic of faith demands that
documents
so unique cannot have had a history wholly like that of secular writings"
(Hodges,
"Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism," BSac 128
[1971]
29-30). Ehrman concludes from this that "apart
from the fact this amounts to
little
more than rhetoric, a paradigmatic argumentum ad hominem,
it is clear that Hodges
chooses
to reject the principles of Wes[t]cott and Hort simply because they do not accept
his
doctrine of revelation and preservation. Under such circumstances, to turn
around and
say
that all arguments for the contrary position will be given rational
consideration is
nothing
short of misleading" (51).
30
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
manuscripts
were to be counted, then modern translations would be
vindicated
rather than the King James, because the early Greek manu-
scripts
which stand behind the vast bulk of Latin manuscripts and
behind
modern translations are quite similar.27 At one point, E. F.
Hills
argued that "God must preserve this text, not secretly, not hidden
away
in a box for hundreds of years or mouldering unnoticed
on some
library
shelf, but openly before the eyes of all men through the contin-
uous usage of His Church.”28 Preservation
is therefore linked to public
accessibility.
It is precisely at this point that the argument for counting
only
Greek manuscripts begs the question. As Ehrman points
out:
[According
to Hills,] the subsequent preservation of the New Testament
text
did not extend to guaranteeing the accuracy of its translation into
other
languages, but only to protecting the relative purity of the Greek
text
itself. Here, of course, his prior argument that God preserved the
text
for the sake of His church becomes irrelevant-since only a select
minority
in the church has ever known Greek.29
b. When do
you count? Majority text advocates tacitly assume
that
since most Greek manuscripts extant today belong to the Byzan-
tine
text, most Greek manuscripts throughout church history have
belonged
to the Byzantine text. But this assumption begs the question
in
the extreme, since there is not one solid shred of evidence that the
Byzantine
text even existed in the first three centuries of the Christian
era.30
Not only this, but as far as our extant witnesses reveal, the Byz-
antine text did not become the majority text until the
ninth century.
Furthermore,
for the letters of Paul, there is no majority text manu-
script
before the ninth century. To embrace the MT/TR text for the
corpus Paulinum, then, requires an 800-year leap of faith. Not
only is
this
a severe instance of petitio principii,
but it also is a cavalier treat-
ment of historical evidence unbecoming of those who
boast a faith
which
cannot be divorced from history. No majority text advocate
would
tolerate such a fideistic leap regarding the person
and work of
Christ;31
how then can they employ it when it comes to the text?
c.
Where do you count? Suppose we were to assume that only
Greek
manuscripts should be counted. And suppose further that public
27 B. M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin. Trans-
mission and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon,
1977) 359.
28 E. F. Hills, The King James Version Defended!, 31.
29 Ehrman,
"Quest for Methodology," 43.
30 See Wallace, "The Majority Text and
the Original Text," 159-66.
31 Ironically, in this instance majority
text advocates-all of whom are theologi-
cally conservative-share by analogy some similarities
with Bultmann's separation of
the
Christ of history and the Christ preached by the early church (i.e., the Christ
of faith
or
Kerygmatic Christ).
NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM 31
accessibility
is a legitimate divine motive for preservation. Given these
two
assumptions, one would expect the Byzantine text-type to be
readily
accessible in all pockets of the ancient Greek-speaking world.
But
that is demonstrably not true. For example, it was not readily
available
to Christians in
fully
investigating the Gospel quotations of Didymus, a
fourth-century
Egyptian
writer, Ehrman concludes, "These findings
indicate that no
'proto-Byzantine'
text existed in
least
if it did, it made no impact on the mainstream of the textual tra-
dition there.”32 What confirms this further
is that in several places Ori-
gen, the great Christian textual scholar, speaks of
textual variants that
were
in a majority of manuscripts in his day, yet today are in a minor-
ity, and vice versa.33 Granting every
gratuitous concession to majority
text
advocates, in the least this shows that no majority text was readily
available
to Christians in
they
argue for a majority on the basis of public accessibility?
2.
Faulty Assumptions
More serious than a question-begging approach
are several decid-
edly faulty assumptions made by MT/TR advocates.
These assumptions
are
shown to be faulty either by the force of logic or empirical
evidence.
a.
Preservation is a necessary corollary of inspiration. E. F.
Hills
argued:
If the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the
Old and New Testament
Scriptures is a true doctrine the doctrine of
the providential preservation
of these Scriptures must also be a true
doctrine. It must be that down
through the centuries God has exercised a
special providential con-
trol God must have done
this. . . . 34
In
other words, preservation proceeds from and is a necessary conse-
quence of inspiration. Or, in the words of Jasper
James Ray, "the writ-
ing of the Word of God by inspiration is no greater
miracle than the
miracle
of its preservation. . . . “35 Ehrman has
ably pointed out the
logical
consequences of such linkage:
Any claim that God preserved the New Testament
text intact, giving His
church actual, not theoretical, possession of
it, must mean one of three
things-either 1) God preserved it in all the
extant manuscripts so that
32 B. Ehrn1an, Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels (
Press,
1986) 260 (italics added).
33 See Wallace, "The Majority Text and
the Original Text," 166.
34 Hills, King James Version Defended!, 8.
35 Ray, God
Wrote Only One Bible, 104.
32
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
none of them contain any textual corruptions, or
2) He preserved it in a
group of manuscripts, none of which contain any
corruptions, or 3) He pre-
served it in a solitary manuscript which alone
contains no corruptions.36
The
problem with these first and second possibilities is that neither one
of
them is true: no two NT manuscripts agree completely-in fact,
there
are between six and ten variations per chapter for the closest two
.manuscripts.
Is it possible that the NT text was preserved
intact in a single
manuscript?
No one argues this particular point, because it is easily
demonstrable
that every manuscript has scribal errors in it. However,
one
group does argue that a particular printed edition of the NT has
been
providentially preserved. Proponents of the Textus Receptus (as
opposed
to those who argue for the majority text37) believe that the TR
satisfies
this third requirement. There are numerous problems with
such
a view,38 but it should be noted that TR advocates are at least
consistent
in putting preservation on the same level with inspiration.
Nevertheless, there seems to be one major flaw
in their approach,
from
a biblical standpoint: If the TR equals the original text, then the
editor
must have been just as inspired as the original writers, for he not
only
selected what readings were to go in this first published edition,
but
he also created some of the readings. To be specific, the last leaf of
Erasmus'
copy of Revelation was missing, so he "back-translated"
from
Latin into Greek and thereby created numerous readings which
have
never been found in any Greek manuscript. This should cause
some
pause to those conservative Protestants who hail Erasmus' text as