Should Conservatives Abandon

Textual Criticism?
Marchant A. King

After the lapse of nearly a century there has again arisen, par-
ticularly among strong conservative groups, a call to repudiate the
results of the textual studies pursued since the middle of last century
and accept the Textus Receptus as the authoritative text of the New
Testament. Allied with the acceptance of the Textus Receptus as
the authoritative text is the claim that the King James Version is the
preferred translation of the Greek Text. The full conservative who
does not wish so to repudiate textual studies does not question the
beauty, suitability, or usefulness of the King James Version. Its
cadence, balance, and propriety of expression are superb, and its
suitability for use in worship or in general is not questioned. The
question is simply whether we are to abandon the work of such
men as Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Nestle and assert that
the Textus Receptus represents in an unquestionable way the original
reading of the New Testament.

T H E GENERAL ARGUMENTS OF THE

TEXTUS RECEPTUS PROPONENTS
First, the claim that modern textual criticism is rationalistic and
has no regard for the special character of the Bible. This may well
be true of some writers in this field but certainly is not true of many.
Among the outstanding early ones Tischendorf was a very godly man,
Westcott has given us some of our finest and most conservative com-
mentaries, and Tregelles was a solid evangelical, while in more recent
days A. T. Robertson, J. Gresham Machen, and Henry Thiessen were
35
36 / Bibliotheca Sacra January 1973
fully convinced of the validity of textual criticism and they are hardly
to be accused of disloyalty to the Bible.
Second, the claim that we must believe God has kept the true
text the possession of His people through the centuries. However
desirable it might seem for us to be sure that the text to which we
are accustomed is the true one we must face the facts. The Textus Re-
ceptus was not the text of the early church in Egypt, nor was it so
in Palestine. The Caesarean type of Greek text certainly existed early
and seems to have been fairly wide-spread, and the somewhat later
Palestinian Syriac was quite close to the Alexandrian. Neither was
the Textus Receptus the text of the Western church. The Old Latin
obviously was not based on it and when Jerome, probably the ablest
literary man in the early Western church, was preparing to do his
New Testament translation, he studied the available Greek manu-
scripts and selected what he thought were the best. The result is that
the Vulgate is very much closer in text to the Alexandrian (and the
present critical text) than it is to the Textus Receptus, and the Vulgate
became the Bible of Western Christians who certainly had as valid a
claim to being God's people as those of Constantinople. The Textus
Receptus, then, has no exclusive right to be considered the text that
God kept as the possession of His people in early days.
Furthermore, we can hardly argue that God must have kept the
true text the possession of His people, for He actually allowed the
church generally to lose some things that are a great deal more im-
portant than the difference between the critical text and the Textus
Receptus. He allowed the church to lose, for 1000 years and more,
(the Byzantine church to this day!) justification by faith, union with
Christ, the spiritual nature of the church, the priesthood of all be-
lievers, and gradually the Bible itself as far as the common people
were concerned.

SOME OF THE SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS

First, opposition to the value of older manuscripts. It certainly

is true that age alone does not guarantee value, but it is just as true
that, other things being equal, the manuscript least removed from the
autograph has the greatest likelihood of similarity to it. Furthermore,
age is among the least subjective elements in manuscript evaluation.
Professor Hodges, however, notes that our early manuscripts are all
from Egypt and urges that there is no good reason to think they
 Should Conservatives Abandon Textual Criticism? / 37
are samples of the rest.1 One might, with no poorer factual basis, ask
what good reason there is to think they are not. The early Egyptian
church certainly gives every evidence of loyalty to the Scriptures.
But the actual fact is that these manuscripts are the only really early
ones we have, and we have them for no other reason, from the
natural standpoint, than the dryness of Egypt.
When we do begin to get manuscripts from other areas they
certainly are not like the Textus Receptus. The Old Latin manu-
script a is from the fourth century, k (with considerable Alexandrian
influence) fourth or fifth century, and Bezae and ten others from the
fifth century, and all these are from the West, not from Egypt and
not at all like the Textus Receptus. Also the Sinaitic and Curetonian
manuscripts of the Old Syriac from the fourth and fifth centuries
are not from Egypt, yet they do not show a Textus Receptus type
of text. So even at the time the Byzantine type text was appearing
in Egypt it seems not to have penetrated the West or as yet the
Syriac-speaking East.
Second, Professor Hodges quite correctly points out that West-
cott and Hort were wrong in their assertion that the Byzantine text
resulted from a specific revision, that no Byzantine readings appeared
until late third century.2 Actually there are a number of Byzantine-
type reading in P 66 which is dated about 200. However, the gradual-
ness of the process of adopting these smoother-type readings in
areas like Egypt does not increase their authenticity. That the By-
zantine scribes had great influence in the Eastern Church seems
demonstrated by the fact that in P 72 dated late third or fourth cen-
tury, the text of 1 Peter shows considerable elements of the
Byzantine, while 2 Peter, accepted and used in Egypt but not in Con-
stantinople, has virtually no Byzantine elements.
Professor Hodges urges that the uniformity of the many Byzan-
tine manuscripts can only be accounted for by their having come from
the autograph by direct line.3 But might not the appeal of the
smoother reading and the explanatory phrase be an equally possible
cause? While there is agreement on these smoother readings, the
fact is that there are also differences in the text of the manuscripts,
and to such an extent that Colwell has identified "families" among
1 Zane C. Hodges, "The Greek Text of the King James Version," Which
Bible? ed. by David Otis Fuller (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, 1971), p. 28.
2 Ibid., p. 32.
3 Ibid., p. 34.
38 / Bibliotheca Sacra January 1973
these very cursives that are claimed to be uniform because they came
from the autograph by direct line. An important and easily verified
example would be Acts 20:28. But the lack of consensus among the
cursives in Revelation is, of course, the most extensive example.
Third, the claim that modern textual criticism is basically sub-
jective. This may well be true of some who advance an "eclectic text,"
but certainly it is not true of a real conservative whose whole aim is
to apply the objective standards in as honest a way as possible. He is
happy when Romans 8:1 is ended at "in Christ Jesus," but he is just
as insistent on the omission of Acts 8:37, however precious to him is
the confession of the deity of Christ.
Fourth, the claim that the extant, early manuscripts survived
because they were rejected "as faulty and so not used/'4 This is thor-
oughly answered by the fact that we have the notations on the margins
and between the lines of the early manuscripts made by various scribes
who over the years studied and worked on them. P 66 and P 75 from
about 200 have such notations and so do the later papyri. Vaticanus
has the notations of at least two such "correctors," one from shortly
after its writing and the other later. Sinaiticus has evidence of seven
distinguishable hands that worked over it and the same marks of
intensive use are seen in the others. Then there are more novel proofs
of use. P 75 was for a time so available in a home that a child once
(and only once!) used it as a "workbook," copying a part of the top
line of the page in large, sprawling letters along the top margin and
manuscript a, considered the earliest of the extant Old Latin, has,
according to Souter, "suffered much more from the kisses of wor-
shipers throughout the centuries."

THE EMPHASIS OF THE TRINITARIAN BIBLE SOCIETY

This group is urging a repudiation of the results of textual criti-

cism along with the Revised Standard Version as having deleted or
played down the deity of Christ. This to a conservative is a very
serious charge and would seem to be true of the Revised Standard
Version in some instances. Its translation of Romans 9:5 appears to
be a conscious avoidance of a clear reference to the deity of Christ,
and in Acts 20:28 it has departed from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and
so does not have this assertion of His deity.
4 David Otis Fuller, "Why This Book?" Which Bible? ed. by David Otis
Fuller (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, 1971), p. 7.
 Should Conservatives Abandon Textual Criticism? / 39
The question, however, which chiefly concerns one at this time
is whether textual criticism is guilty of this action and one may im-
mediately say that, except for unbelievers who might get into this
field, there is no intention to do so. A Tregelles or a Machen hardly
intended to play down the deity of Christ any more than did Atha-
nasius, the most consistent known user in ancient days of the text
type preferred by present textual criticism. It is true that the critical
text omits Acts 8:37 but so do not only the early papyri, the early
uncials, the lectionaries, the Syriac, and the Egyptian, but the Byzan-
tine cursives themselves, the very group of manuscripts these men
professedly are following! In John 1:18 the great Alexandrian uncials
along with the A.D. 200 papyri read "God" rather than "Son" of
the Textus Receptus. Certainly "only begotten God" is more difficult
than "only begotten Son" (Is one ready to desert the principle that
scribes tended to go to the more easily understood?), but one thing
is sure, "only begotten God" does not play down the deity of Christ.
Again in Acts 20:28 the Alexandrian reads "God" in reference to
Christ while some of the Byzantine read "Lord," a good many have
"Lord and God," and most of the rest have "the Lord God." Here
again the Alexandrian reading is clearer on Christ's deity than the
various Byzantine readings. On 2 Peter 1:1 the Trinitarian Bible
Society seems confused. There is no question on the Greek text, and
even the Revised Standard Version gives the correct translation "our
God and Savior Jesus Christ" while the Authorized Version has "the
righteousness of God and our Saviour." (The clarity on Christ's deity
in this passage probably does not annoy the liberal since he rejects
the apostolicity of 2 Peter.)
The full conservative who accepts the principles of textual
criticism is impressed also by considerations such as these.
First, the conclusions of the earlier workers in textual criticism
have been amply confirmed by recent manuscript discoveries. The
papyri that are early are strongly Alexandrian. The three major ones
(about 200), P46' 66> 75, are decidedly Alexandrian and the oldest
known New Testament manuscript, the Rylands fragment, from about
A.D. 125, while containing only one point at which variations occur,
has at that point exactly the Alexandrian reading. This manuscript
evidently was made only a relatively few years after the Gospel of
John was written.
Second, textual criticism has cleared Romans 8:1 from the pos-
sible implication of works religion in the Textus Receptus reading.
40 / Bibliotheca Sacra January 1973
Every early manuscript known ends the statement with "Christ Jesus"
and the "correctors' " notes on Claromontanus (sixth century) give
something of a history of the text at this point. The original hand, as
just indicated, ended the verse with "Christ Jesus." Some time later a
"corrector" added in the margin "who walk not after the flesh" and
still later on another added "but after the Spirit."
Third, to issue a New Testament that follows the Textus Recep-
tus without explanation on passages such as 1 John 5:7 or the
account of the woman taken in adultery seems to be quite misleading.
The latter is not found in any early manuscript except the Western
family, nor is it included in a fair number of later ones. The great
early papyri of John, even though showing the work of correctors
through this part of the Gospel, do not have the slightest hint of there
being anything omitted here. Furthermore this passage is placed in
various other locations in the gospels. The family of later manuscripts
designated /l and some manuscripts of the Armenian version place it
after John 21:24. Another prominent group place the passage fol-
lowing Luke 21:38. Cursive 225 puts it after John 7:36 and about
a dozen manuscripts put an asterisk or similar warning mark on the
passage. Phenomena like these seem inexplicable if the passage was
a part of John's original writing. As for 1 John 5:7, this verse is
not found in the Byzantine manuscripts themselves. In fact, it is not
found in any Greek manuscript, of any age, yet it is included in the
Textus Receptus!
Finally, that God has graciously allowed the great early uncials
like Vaticanus to be made available for scholarly use as well as the
recent discovery of the very early papyri, particularly of John, would
seem to call for fervent thanksgiving to the Lord and reverent atten-
tion to their testimony rather than opposition.
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.