[The following material is published by Way of Life Literature and is 
copyrighted by David W. Cloud, 1986. All rights are reserved. Permission is 
given for duplication for personal use, but not for resale. The following 
is available in booklet format from Way of Life Literature, Bible Baptist 
Church, 1219 N. Harns Road, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277. Phone (206) 675-
8311. This article is number four in a set of five booklets.]

MYTHS ABOUT THE KING JAMES BIBLE: 

Copyright 1986 by David W. Cloud. All rights reserved.

MYTH # 5: TRUE SCHOLARS REJECT THE RECEIVED TEXT
By David W. Cloud

Let us consider another matter which is frequently brought out in 
discussions about the KJV and the Received Text: Modern scholarship 
supposedly is fully arrayed against the TR and is on the side of the 
"oldest is best" line of textual theory. The evangelical leader we 
have quoted several times in these studies says:

"There are some in this country and elsewhere who are very zealous for the 
textus receptus ... But unfortunately, the basis on which they are 
operating is wrong, and I have always tried to do what I could in a gentle 
way to lead them to appreciate good, current evangelical scholarship where 
the Greek text and the translation are concerned. The situation is somewhat 
complex, and many people do not understand it as a result of that 
complexity" (Letter from James M. Boice, Tenth Presbyterian Church, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Dr. Thomas Hale, United Mission to Nepal, 
Kathmandu, Nepal, September 13, 1985).

It is true, of course, that "evangelical scholarship," for the most 
part, is indeed predisposed against the TR. But if we had only this letter 
upon which to base our thinking, we would be left with the idea that NO 
evangelical or Bible-believing scholar today holds the opinion that the TR 
is the preserved Word of God. The silence of Boice regarding the existence 
of such men implies that this is the case.

This same silence is promoted in most classrooms of Bible colleges and 
seminaries when the subject of Greek or Bible texts and translations is 
discussed. David Garrett, a California pastor who graduated from a 
prestigious school, acknowledges this silence. He testifies that he was 
shocked when, seven years after graduation, he read Which Bible and 
saw the power of the Bible-honoring dissertations contained therein. "I 
was unaware that such a position existed! The issue of a rival theory was 
not even mentioned in class and was given one page in my textbook for 
textual criticism" (David Otis Fuller, Four Recognized Greek 
Scholars, p. 6).

@PARABEFORE2 = Dr. Donald Waite, director of Bible for Today ministries, is 
at home in the Greek and Hebrew languages, and he defends the Received Text 
as the preserved Word of God. Consider his testimony of how he was kept in 
the dark concerning the Received Text position during his schooling:

@BODY TEXT2 = For about twenty years I was in darkness about this issue. I 
knew nothing of it from roughly 1951 to 1971. ... I was at Dallas 
Theological Seminary from 1948 to 1952. That was my Master of Theology.    
Then I stayed an extra year, 1953. Throughout those years we were simply 
told to use the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament, which we did in the 
Greek classes. It was the actual text Westcott and Hort developed. It was 
not simply another text--the Nestles Text or the Souter Text--but it 
was Westcott and Hort. And I didn't know there was any other Greek 
text. ...

@BODY TEXT2 = I majored in classic Greek and Latin at the University of 
Michigan, 1945-48. Took three years to get my four years of work. I went 
summer and winter, so that I could marry my wife. Then I came to Dallas 
Seminary. I was learning New Testament Greek, and I didn't pay much heed to 
the text. I didn't care. I just wanted to learn the forms and get good 
grades, which I did. But I did not examine the textual base that we were 
using. I just assumed that was the only one to use.

@BODY TEXT2 = You ask the question, then, how I came to understand the 
Bible version issue. I guess the first thing I read about, or knew about, 
my mother-in-law to be, Mrs. Gertrude Grey Sanborn, gave me the book 
God Wrote Only One Bible. I didn't say or think too much about it. I 
didn't study it at the time, but that was my first introduction. Then as I 
was teaching as professor of Greek at Shelton College in Cape Maine, New 
Jersey, one of my pupils, Sandra Devos--Sandra Phillips, I think, was 
her name then--said that there was a book in our library at Shelton by 
Dean John William Burgon that defends not only the King James Bible, but 
also the Greek text, the Received Text, that underlies that Bible. 

@BODY TEXT2 = "Have you ever seen that book, Dr. Waite?" she asked 
me. 

@BODY TEXT2 = I said, "Well, no, I haven't."

@BODY TEXT2 = I think I might have looked at it; I might have glanced at 
it. I thought to myself, "Here is an interesting thing. Here is the 
first book that I have seen that says there is a difference in the Greek 
text that the modern versions are using, and that the King James Bible text 
that underlies it, the Textus Receptus, is superior to the Westcott and 
Hort-type text, or to the critical text."

@BODY TEXT2 = ... Then about that time, I think it was about 1969 or 1970, 
along in there, Dr. Fuller came out with his book Which Bible. I 
read that. Also I looked at at least one of the books by Dr. Edward F. 
Hills--Believing Bible Study. I don't think I saw at the time his 
other book, The Defense of the King James Bible.

@BODY TEXT2 = So in 1971, having read these various books, I was deeply 
convicted and convinced that the King James Bible and the Greek text that 
underlies it, as well as the Hebrew text--although I got into the Hebrew 
text a little bit later--but I was convinced that the Greek text that 
underlies the New Testament of the King James Bible was the accurate text 
to use. ...

@BODY TEXT2 = So you can say the first twenty years, from 1951-71, I was in 
somewhat of a daze, somewhat of a darkness, concerning the issues. Then    
from 1971-91, twenty more years, I have been writing, I have been studying, 
I have been preaching, I have been teaching, I have been debating, I have 
been arguing, I have been talking about, I have been preaching from, I have 
continued to memorize from and believe the King James Bible and the text 
that underlies that Bible. So for twenty years I've been a stalwart 
defender of that Book.

@PARAAFTER2 = A great many preachers can testify of similar experiences. 
When I took Greek at Tennessee Temple, I was instructed to purchase a 
United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (the Westcott-Hort text) and 
was never told that the Received Text was the ancient, traditional text. We 
were not instructed in the issues surrounding this crucial matter.

To return to the point at hand, though, we note that it is popular to 
characterize those who uphold the Received Text as unscholarly. Another 
example of this is seen in a speech by Bible editor Eldon Epps to a group 
of "scholars" in 1973. After noting the fact that there are still a 
considerable number of men who are defending the TR and KJV as the 
preserved Word of God, Epps observes: "I am being facetious only to a 
limited extent when I ask, if the T.R. can still be defended, ALBEIT IN 
MERELY A PSEUDO-SCHOLARLY FASHION [emphasis is the editor's], how much 
solid progress have we made in textual criticism in the 20th century?" 
(Eldon Jay Epps, Journal of Biblical Literature, 1974, No. 93). 

Epps seems amazed that after a century of the promotion of Westcott-Hort's 
critical theories, some persist in defending the TR. This same attitude is 
expressed by Christian leaders within practically every spectrum of 
Christianity--Liberal, Evangelical, Charismatic, Fundamental, Anglican, 
Lutheran, Methodist, Brethren, Baptist, you name it. 

@PARABEFORE2 = Consider another testimony which illustrates what the 
average Christian "scholar" thinks of those who defend the TR and 
KJV. After being given a copy of Which Bible by Cecil Carter, an 
elder in a brethren assembly in Canada, Bible translator Dick Walker shares 
what he thought at that point in time:

@BODY TEXT2 = I received [the] book and exhortation at `arms length.' I 
considered your opinion genuine but perhaps naive. After all, I had 
graduated from a seminary in California which had one of the highest 
accreditations on the west coast. I had majored in New Testament, taken two 
and one-half years of New Testament Greek from a scholar who had his Ph.D 
in Greek studies and who also had many years of related semitic studies. My 
studies also included a course in the text and canon of the New Testament 
as well as writing my graduation thesis titled `The Exegetical Value of the 
Greek Participle.' I was satisfied with the science of textual criticism 
and the `Nestles' text, which is based on the Westcott and Hort text.

@PARAAFTER2 = This Bible translator later saw that he had been led astray 
by modern scholarship and had been kept in the dark about the writings of 
godly men who defend the TR, but his thinking upon receiving the copy of 
Which Bible? well illustrates the common attitude.

@PARABEFORE2 = Another Bible scholar, William Bruner, Th.M, Ph.D., gives    
further illustration of this attitude. In a letter to David Otis Fuller he 
says this:

@BODY TEXT2 = On May 12, 1970, you wrote me a very kind letter and sent me 
some sample materials from your book Which Bible? You might as well 
have been shooting a pop gun at a stone wall. My mind was so strongly 
fortified in the doctrine of Westcott and Hort that I could not for one 
moment consider the King James Bible. Had I not studied Textual Criticism 
under the great Dr. A. T. Robertson? I thought that you were just one of 
those die-hard Fundamentalists who were striving to keep the Christian 
world under the bondage of traditionalism. Such men are interested only in 
pleasing the people by catering to their ignorance, prejudice and 
sentimentality! But just a few weeks ago I happened to read your two books, 
Which Bible? and True or False? For the first time a little new light shone 
in. I saw that there is another side to the argument. Dr. Robertson had not 
given us all the facts (Four Recognized Greek Scholars, p. 2).

@PARAAFTER2 = Indeed, Dr. Robertson had not given his students all the 
facts!

@PARABEFORE2 = Wilber N. Pickering is a recognized Greek scholar and a 
defender of the Traditional Text. At the turn of the century, Anglican 
scholar John Burgon raised powerful arguments against the theories and the 
textual work of Westcott and Hort and the English Revised Version 
translation committee. Burgon's treatises were never answered. From a 
Bible-believing viewpoint they are unanswerable. In reviewing some of 
Burgon's arguments, Pickering makes an interesting and indicting 
observation:

@BODY TEXT2 = The prevailing ignorance concerning Burgon and his work may 
be largely attributed to the circumstance that he is either ignored or 
misrepresented in every handbook (that the author has seen) published in 
English in this century that touches on the method of New Testament textual 
criticism (Wilber N. Pickering, "Contribution of John William Burgon to 
New Testament Criticism," True or False? p. 218).

@PARABEFORE2 = Who actually was this John Burgon? Why is it so strange that 
he is not so much as mentioned in many handbooks dealing with New Testament 
textual criticism today? Consider these facts:

@BODY TEXT2 = Burgon was a man of unquestioned scholarship. His biographer 
lists over fifty published works, on a considerable variety of subjects, 
besides numerous articles contributed to periodicals. ... He contributed 
considerably to Scrivener's A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of 
the New Testament in its various editions. Edward Miller, who became 
posthumous editor to both Scrivener and Burgon, said of this contribution, 
"He has added particulars of three hundred and seventy-four manuscripts 
previously unknown to all the world of letters."

@BODY TEXT2 = Of the considerable volume of unpublished materials that Dean 
Burgon left when he died, of special note is his index of New Testament 
citations by the Church Fathers of antiquity. It consists of sixteen thick 
manuscript volumes, to be found in the British Museum, and contains 86,489    
quotations. It may be said that Burgon's scholarship in this facet of the 
total field has never been equaled (Ibid., p. 217).

@PARAAFTER2 = And yet this man of such prestigious scholarship, a man whose 
work in the field of Greek textual criticism was so uniquely important, is 
consistently ignored or misrepresented today. Why? The answer can only be 
that Burgon unhesitatingly defended the Textus Receptus and aimed mighty 
blows at the popular Westcott-Hort theories of textual criticism, and 
therefore at those who are following those theories. Burgon doesn't fit the 
popular mold; his arguments are powerful, so he is simply ignored; or if 
not ignored, his well-reasoned observations are subtly replaced with 
"straw men" which are then easily dismissed as unworthy of the 
modern critic's time. 

That is fact, dear friends. This same treatment is allotted to every man of 
God who defends the Received Text.

In the secular field, this same game is played by the humanists who control 
much of today's mass media--newspapers, radio, television, periodicals. 
It is possible for people to survey the media continually and not even 
learn of the existence of many important people, groups, and philosophies. 
Someone from the lunatic fringe of an issue can show up in front of an 
embassy, for example, with two or three likeminded loonies and the media 
will make it into a front page event, while a convention of 15,000 
Fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians in the same city is completely 
ignored. By selective use of this media blackout, those in charge of pro
gramming can effectively control the thinking of the average person who is 
without alternate sources of information. 

This is what is happening in regard to the important issues of Bible texts 
and translations. Even the graduates of basically sound Bible institutions 
are, as we have seen, practically unaware even of the existence of a 
scholarly "other side" of the issue. Because of evangelical 
"media blackout" on this subject, they are aware only of views 
closely paralleling Westcott-Hort's turn-of-the-century theories: 
"Oldest and better manuscripts are to be preferred in passages of 
question" (meaning Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and the few other 
manuscripts which follow their corrupted pattern are to replace the 
readings of the entire majority of other textual witnesses), etc., etc.

Some years ago I published a study on the history and work of the United 
Bible Societies. Included in this was a brief sharing of my conviction that 
the TR is the pure, preserved Word of God as opposed to the text 
represented in the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament. Actually I 
did not spend a great amount of time defending the TR, since that was not 
the primary purpose of the study. I did mention the fact that the editors 
of the United Bible Societies Greek text are apostates--Modernists and 
Roman Catholic prelates--and I quoted from the Preface to the American 
Bible Society's RSV which states that the KJV and the Greek text upon which 
it is based are gravely defected. I then proceeded to demonstrate just how 
significantly different the UBS text is from the Textus Receptus, and 
concluded with the contention that it is not possible, in light of God's 
promises to preserve His Word pure through the centuries, that the text    
which went throughout the earth during the past centuries was a gravely 
corrupted one. The opposite is true. It is the United Bible Societies' text 
which is the gravely defected one. That was all. Certainly it was no wild-
eyed rampage about the King James Bible being inspired down to the jots and 
tittles of every antiquated word. The main thesis of the book had to do 
with the deep theological apostasy which has taken root within the United 
Bible Societies, and I occupied myself primarily with a thorough 
documentation of this frightful apostasy.

Shortly after the release of this study in Asia, a letter arrived from a 
professor in a theological school in India. He claimed to be an evangelical 
professor of Greek who believes in the verbal inspiration of Scripture, yet 
consider what he thinks of my view of the TR--"Your theory that 
God's promise of preservation applies only to TR is rather ludicrous." 
This man has a doctorate in theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. Of 
course he has every right to reject my position regarding the TR, but the 
very fact that he calls it "ludicrous" shows that he is ignorant of 
the Bible-believing scholarship which is arrayed on the side of the 
venerable Textus Receptus.

SCHOLARS WHO SUPPORT THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS 

What follows is basically my reply to this Greek professor:

Dear Brother: According to my dictionary, "ludicrous" means 
"absurd; ridiculous." It refers to something which has no backing 
whatsoever in reality; something which cannot possibly be true. This 
statement is a strong hint that you are not familiar with the basic 
arguments and issues at stake here. If my position is truly absurd, meaning 
"opposed to manifest reason or truth; irrational" (Funk & 
Wagnalls), please tell me how a great number of very godly and scholarly 
men can hold this very position? 

You might disagree with the position, and I admit that many men do; but it 
is folly to call the position ludicrous. 

I do not want to be a follower of men, because men can be found on either 
side of any doctrine or issue, but I do want to point out the fact that a 
great number of born again scholars have and do hold the same basic 
position that I presented in my study. The following are just a few.

I do not make it a habit to "glory in man," but, as Paul said, you 
have forced me. "Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will 
glory also." I will not glory in myself, of course, for in me there 
is no special scholarship in which to glory, but I will list a few men who 
could, if they so desired, glory in such scholarship and who hold basically 
the same position as I hold.

It should be kept in mind that these men will not agree on some 
particulars. Some stand strictly for the Received Text underlying the 
King James Version, while others prefer what they call the Majority text 
which in some points differs from the Textus Receptus. Some believe the 
King James Version is without error, while others believe there are slight    
changes which should be made in the KJV. But all agree on the basic premise 
that the Received Text is the preserved Word of God and represents the 
Divine Original, whereas the Westcott-Hort text is a corrupted one.

It also should be noted that these men vary in the degree of 
scholarship possessed in the traditional sense of holding high formal 
degrees and being recognized Bible linguists, but none of them can be 
lumped in the category to which today's defenders of the TR and KJV are 
usually assigned--ignorant, uninformed, weak-minded men who cling to old 
ways because of some strange bias against that which is modern!

@PARABEFORE2 = DR. EDWARD F. HILLS graduated from Yale University and 
Westminster Theological Seminary, received the Th.M. from Columbia 
Seminary, and the Th.D. from Harvard. He also pursued graduate studies at 
Chicago University and Calvin Seminary. Dr. Hills authored The King 
James Version Defended and Believing Bible Study, both of which 
uphold the TR alone as the fulfillment of God's promise of preservation. To 
illustrate briefly the conviction of this scholar in regard to the TR and 
KJV we will quote from one of the closing paragraphs in The King James 
Version Defended:

@BODY TEXT2 = In regard to Bible versions many contemporary Christians are 
behaving like spoiled and rebellious children. They want a Bible version 
that pleases them no matter whether it pleases God or not. "We want a 
Bible version in our own idiom," they clamor. "We want a Bible that 
talks to us in the same way in which we talk to our friends over the 
telephone. We want an informal God, no better educated then ourselves, with 
a limited vocabulary and a taste for modern slang." And having thus 
registered our preference, they go their several ways. Some of them unite 
with the modernists in using the R.S.V. or the N.E.B. Others deem the 
N.A.S.V. or the N.I.V. more "evangelical." Still others opt for the 
T.E.V. or the Living Bible.

@BODY TEXT2 = But God is bigger than you are, dear friend, and the Bible 
version which you must use is not a matter for you to decide according to 
your whims and prejudices. It has already been decided for you by the 
workings of God's special providence. ... Put on the spiritual mind that 
leads to life and peace! Receive by faith the True Text of God's holy 
Word, which has been preserved down through the ages by His special 
providence and now is found in the Masoretic Hebrew text, the Greek Textus 
Receptus, and the King James Version and other faithful translations!

@PARAAFTER2 = DR. DAVID OTIS FULLER (D.D.), editor of Which Bible, True 
or False, and Counterfeit or Genuine, all of which present in no 
uncertain terms the position that the Textus Receptus is the pure, holy, 
preserved Word of God. Dr. Fuller obtained his Bachelor of Arts at Wheaton 
College, majoring in English literature. He obtained the Master of Divinity 
degree at Princeton Theological Seminary, studying under men such as Robert 
Dick Wilson who was a master of 45 ancient languages and could repeat from 
memory a Hebrew translation of the entire New Testament without missing a 
single syllable. Dallas Theological Seminary awarded Fuller the Doctor of 
Divinity degree. He pastored the Wealthy Street Baptist Church in Grand 
Rapids, Michigan, for 40 years. While there he founded the Grand Rapids    
Baptist Institute which later became the Grand Rapids Baptist Bible 
College. Fuller co-founded the Children's Bible Hour radio program in 1942 
and for 33 years was its chairman. The Children's Bible Hour is on nearly 
600 radio stations. For 52 years Fuller was on the board of the Association 
of Baptists for World Evangelism. Fuller's published books totaled fifteen 
to twenty. Fuller's Which Bible, which has 350 pages, has gone 
through more than a dozen printings totaling more than 50,000 copies.

@PARABEFORE2 = The following excerpt from one of Dr. Fuller's sermons 
illustrates his view of Bible versions:

@BODY TEXT2 = But someone replies, "We believe in the inerrancy of the 
original manuscripts." All right, I agree with you there. But then we 
ask the question, and it's a good one, too: "Was God careless? Or 
didn't He realize that these errors were creeping in? Or was He impotent 
that He could not keep His Word even if He wanted to?"Look out yonder 
into space, will you please? Listen to some of the Christian astronomers 
and scientists who study the stars and all the planets and constellations 
there in outer space, and they will tell you that God has so created them 
in such a meticulous fashion that they obey all the laws that He has laid 
down for His whole vast creation. If God is that careful to keep His 
universe, do you think He is going to be careless about His sacred, holy 
Word upon which hangs the destiny of the souls of men, whether for heaven 
or hell? You know good and well He could not possibly be careless about 
such a wonderful Book. But if you want to go ahead and believe in a God who 
has just let his book go and become filled with errors through the mistakes 
of men, you go ahead, but please count me out as of now.

@BODY TEXT2 = I believe with all my heart that there was a time in the 
early church when God blessed certain men to choose the twenty-seven books 
which comprise our New Testament, and in this order we have them now. The 
proof for that is in the Bible. There they are. Twenty-seven books in that 
particular order. Just so, I believe God was very definitely in the 
choosing of the forty-seven scholars who came together at the command of 
King James I around 1605 to produce a new version of the Bible. We are bold 
enough to say that we don't believe there was ever such a collection of 
great, I mean truly great, scholars as these who were so chosen.

@BODY TEXT2 = You see, God knows what he is doing. He always does, and He 
chose that particular time and age when the English language was at its 
zenith, to use these men for that purpose. 

@BODY TEXT2 = Now let me say here before I go any further, I have never 
claimed to be a scholar. I do not claim to be one now, and I never expect 
to claim to be one. But there are two very definite claims that I make 
without hesitation, or trepidation, or reservation. One is I claim to have 
studied under some of the greatest scholars this country has ever produced, 
if not the world. It was my privilege to be a student at Princeton Seminary 
and to graduate from that institution just before the flood. I mean by 
that, before the flood of modernism. Today Princeton is modernistic in 
every sense of the word, but not then. There were giants in the earth in 
those days. 
   
@BODY TEXT2 = Consider Robert Dick Wilson. He was one of the greatest 
linguists this country has ever seen. He was at home in forty-five 
languages and dialects. He was a contemporary of the great scholar of 
Oxford, England, Dr. Driver, who claimed that the book of Daniel was wrong 
because of certain statements or phrases in it. Dr. Wilson spent years 
going through some 50,000 manuscripts to prove that Driver was wrong and 
that Daniel was right. 

@BODY TEXT2 = A second claim is that I can tell a true Christian scholar 
when I hear him, or read his works, or talk with him. By Christian I mean 
one who holds to and reverences the Word of God as being THE Word of God, 
and as being different from any other book that has ever been published 
because it is the only book that God ever wrote. 

@BODY TEXT2 = As I have said before so say I now again, there are those 
people who tell us today that there is no version of the Scripture that is 
without error. Very well, then, where does the doctrine of inerrancy go 
if there are errors in the Bible? They come back with that statement, 
"Well, we believe that the original autographs were inspired, but not 
those copies of them." We agree that the originals were inspired, but 
my question is simply this: If God wrote this Book in the beginning, 
wasn't He able to keep it intact and pure and without error all through the 
ages? My answer to that is that He certainly was and He still is so 
capable. I would remind you again that God is jealous for His Word, just as 
much as He is jealous for His blessed Son, Jesus Christ. 

@BODY TEXT2 = If someone says to you that all manuscripts and all versions 
today have errors in them, then ask them in return what kind of a God they 
worship. A careless or impotent God in my book is a monstrosity. I believe 
that the King James Version does not have any errors.

@BODY TEXT2 = Please remember this. You and I are facing, as I have said 
before, the most vicious and malicious attack upon the Word of God that has 
ever been made since the garden of Eden, and the modern attack began with 
the publication of the Revised Version of 1881. This is an unpopular cause 
at present in Christian circles. I have found this out again and again, and 
I am going to find it out in the future. But I can say as far as I am 
concerned it doesn't make any difference what happens to me, but it makes a 
whale of a difference what happens to the cause of Jesus Christ. And 
someday you and I, my friend, will have to stand before a holy God and give 
an account to what we did or did not do in seeking to open the eyes of 
people to the facts that have been covered up for so long concerning His 
holy, indestructible, impregnable Word. 

@PARAAFTER2 = JOHN WILLIAM BURGON held several high degrees from Oxford 
University. "Most of his adult life was spent at Oxford as Fellow of 
Oriel College and then as vicar of St. Mary's (the University Church) and 
Gresham Professor of Divinity" (Which Bible, p. 86). He made 
several tours of European libraries, examining and collating New Testament 
manuscripts wherever he went and personally inspected the Vaticanus and 
Sinaiticus manuscripts in 1860 and 1862 (Ibid., p. 87). "His biographer 
lists over fifty published works, on a considerable variety of subjects, 
besides numerous articles contributed to periodicals. He contributed    
considerably to Scrivener's A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of 
the New Testament in its various editions. Edward Miller, who became 
posthumous editor to both Scrivener and Burgon, said of this contribution, 
`He has added particulars of three hundred and seventy-four manuscripts 
previously unknown to the world of letters.' Of the considerable volume of 
unpublished material that Dean Burgon left when he died, of special note is 
his index of New Testament citations by the Church Fathers of antiquity. It 
consists of sixteen thick manuscript volumes, to be found in the British 
Museum, and contains 86,489 quotations. It may be said that Burgon's 
scholarship in this facet of the total field has never been equaled (Wilbur 
Pickering, "Contribution of John William Burgon to New Testament 
Criticism," True or False? p. 217).

@PARABEFORE2 = Without question, Burgon was a Greek scholar of the highest 
order and also an unwavering, very bold defender of the TR. Though he 
believed there might be room for minor changes in the TR, he was completely 
opposed to the modern critical text. Consider an excerpt from his critique 
of the English Revised Version of 1881. Everything he says about the ERV is 
applicable to the popular versions of our day:

@BODY TEXT2 = In the end, when partisanship had cooled down, and passion 
had evaporated, and prejudice had ceased to find an auditory, the 
`Revision' of 1881 must come to be universally regarded as what it most 
certainly is, the most astonishing, as well as the most calamitous literary 
blunder of the Age. ...

@BODY TEXT2 = In thus demonstrating the worthlessness of the `New Greek 
Text' of the Revisionists, I considered that I had destroyed the key of 
their position. And so perforce I had. For if the underlying Greek Text be 
mistaken, what else but incorrect must the English Translation be? ...

@BODY TEXT2 = A yet stranger phenomenon is, that those who have once 
committed themselves to an erroneous theory [Westcott and Hortism], seem to 
be incapable of opening their eyes to the untrustworthiness of the fabric 
they have erected, even when it comes down in their sight like a child's 
house built with playing cards, and presents to every eye but their own the 
appearance of a shapeless ruin. ...

@BODY TEXT2 = For we resolutely maintain, that external evidence 
must after all be our best, our only safe guide. And to come to the point, 
we refuse to throw in our lot with those who, disregarding the witness of 
every other known Codex, every other Version, every other available 
Ecclesiastical Writer, insist on following the dictates of a little group 
of authorities, of which nothing whatever is known with so much certainty 
as that often, when they concur exclusively, it is to mislead. ...

@BODY TEXT2 = Shame--yes, shame on the learning which comes abroad only 
to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the doubting, and to mislead the 
blind! Shame on that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned but most 
incompetent men who, finding themselves (in an evil hour) appointed to 
correct `plain and clear errors' in the English Authorized Version, 
occupied themselves instead with falsifying the inspired Greek Text in 
countless places, and branding with suspicion some of the most precious    
utterances of the Spirit! Shame, yes, shame upon them! ...

@BODY TEXT2 = Changes of any sort are unwelcome in such a book as the 
Bible; but the discovery that changes have been made for the worse, offends 
greatly. ...

@BODY TEXT2 = What offends us is the discovery that, for every 
obscurity which has been removed, at least half a dozen others have been 
introduced: in other words, the result of this Revision has been the 
planting of a fresh crop of difficulties, before undreamed of, so that a 
perpetual wrestling with these is what hereafter awaits the diligent 
student of the New Testament. ...

@BODY TEXT2 = Call this Text Erasmian or Complutensian--the text of 
Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs--call it the `Received,' or the 
Traditional Greek Text, or whatever other name you please--the fact 
remains, that a Text has come down to us which is attested by a general 
consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Versions, ancient Fathers (John 
Burgon, Revision Revised).

@PARAAFTER2 = TERENCE H. BROWN. Terence Brown is retired from the position 
of Editorial Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society, and he is but one 
example of the godly, evangelical scholarship which resides within that 
organization. The Trinitarian Bible Society has the remarkable testimony 
that for more than 150 years it has held fast to its founding principles, 
one of which is that it will publish and distribute only the Textus 
Receptus and faithful translations based on it. The Trinitarian Bible 
Society has existed since 1831 and has not ceased to uphold the TR and 
faithful translations of this text as the perfect and preserved Word of 
God. They translate, publish, and distribute Received Text-based Scriptures 
in many languages and nations. They also publish a Greek edition of the 
Received Text.

DR. DONALD A. WAITE. We referred to Dr. Waite earlier in this study, so we 
will not repeat his credentials here. He is a scholar who stands 
unequivocally for the Received Text.

@PARABEFORE2 = ZANE HODGES. Hodges is Professor of New Testament Literature 
and Exegesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, and has taught Greek for thirty 
years. He wrote "The Greek Text of the King James Version" which 
appeared in the journal Bibliotheca Sacra. An excerpt makes it clear 
where Hodges stands in regard to Majority Text as contrasted with the new 
critical texts:

@BODY TEXT2 = The average well-taught Bible-believing Christian has often 
heard the King James Version corrected on the basis of "better 
manuscripts" or "older authorities." Such corrections are often 
made from the pulpit as well as being found in print. If he has ever 
inquired into the matter, the Bible-believing Christian has probably been 
told that the Greek text used by the translators of 1611 is inferior to 
that used for more recent translations. He has perhaps also been told that 
the study of the Greek text of the New Testament (called textual criticism) 
is now a highly developed discipline which has led us to a more accurate    
knowledge of the original text of the Bible. Lacking any kind of technical 
training in this area, the average believer probably has accepted such 
explanations from individuals he regards as qualified to give them. 
Nevertheless, more than once he may have felt a twinge of uneasiness about 
the whole matter and wondered if, by any chance, the familiar King James 
Version might not be somewhat better than its detractors think. It is the 
purpose of this article to affirm that, as a matter of fact, there are 
indeed grounds for this kind of uneasiness and--what is more--these 
grounds are considerable. ...

@BODY TEXT2 = ... The Majority text, upon which the King James Version 
is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an 
authentic representation of the original text. This claim is quite 
independent of any shifting consensus of scholarly judgment about its 
readings and is based on the objective reality of its dominance in the 
transmissional history of the New Testament text. This dominance has not 
and--we venture to suggest--cannot be otherwise explained.

@BODY TEXT2 = It is hoped, therefore, that the general Christian reader 
will exercise the utmost reserve in accepting corrections to his Authorized 
Version ... He should go on using his King James Version with confidence. 
New Testament textual criticism, at least, has advanced no objectively 
verifiable reason why he should not.

@PARAAFTER2 = I must note here that Dr. Hodges does not believe exactly 
like I do regarding the Received Text. I believe the TR is perfect and that 
it has no need of modification, but Dr. Hodges, while supporting the 
Received Text in general, believes it should be modified somewhat by 
principles he and others have developed and which they call The Majority 
Text. In 1982 Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad published The Greek New 
Testament According to the Majority Text based on these principles. I 
reject these efforts to change the Received Text, but it is also a fact 
that though the Hodges-Farstad Text does differ somewhat from the Received 
Text, its differences are slight compared with those of the Westcott-Hort 
Text. 

The point of this study is to illustrate that there are scholars who reject 
the Westcott-Hort text and who follow the Received textual line. Zane 
Hodges is certainly an example of this as can be seen in the excerpts we 
have given from his writings. 

@PARABEFORE2 = DR. THOMAS M. STROUSE has a B.S. in engineering from Purdue 
University, a M.Div. from Maranatha Baptist Graduate School of Theology, a 
Ph.D. from Bob Jones University, and has completed all residence work for 
the Th.D. from Maranatha. He has been Professor of Theology at Tabernacle 
Baptist Theological Seminary since 1988, and he heads up the Doctorate 
Program at Tabernacle. That Strouse stands for the Received Text is evident 
in his book The Lord God Hath Spoken: A Guide to Bibliology, 
published in 1992:

@BODY TEXT2 = The student of the Bible must recognize that the Bible's 
underlying texts are extremely important. ... The student of the Word 
should use the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew OT because it is the    
standardized and traditional text of the OT, and the student should use the 
Received Text of the Greek NT because it is superior to the Critical Text 
and Majority Text textually, historically, and Christologically. Not only 
is the text of the Bible important, but so is the translation of the Bible. 
Since the Masoretic and Received Texts are superior, it follows that their 
resultant translation, the KJV, is superior. ... The KJV is the Word of 
God in the English language. It has no errors in it because it carefully 
reflects the original language texts closest to the autographs. The AV, 
like all translations, has `language limitations,' but these are not 
errors.

DR. WILBUR N. PICKERING, Linguist-Translator and Director of Public 
Relations for the Assoiacao Wycliffe para Traduao da B!blia in Brasilia, 
Brazil. Pickering is the author of The Identity of the New Testament Text, 
which is based partially on his master's thesis at Dallas Theological 
Seminary in 1968 entitled "An Evaluation of the Contribution of John 
William Burgon to New Testament Textual Criticism." While Pickering does 
not believe the Received Text is perfect, he does take a clear stand 
against the modern critical text: 

"I am thinking of the degree to which they [the critical texts] differ 
among themselves, the uncertainty as to the identity of the text reflected 
in the many footnotes regarding textual variants, and the nature and extent 
of their common divergence from the King James Version. ...

:Down through the centuries of copying, the original text has always been 
reflected with a high degree of accuracy in the manuscript tradition as a 
whole. The history of the text presented in this chapter not only accounts 
nicely for the Majority Text, it also accounts for the inconsistent 
minority of MSS. They are remnants of the abnormal transmission of the 
text, reflecting ancient aberrant forms. It is a dependence upon such 
aberrant forms that distinguishes contemporary critical editions of the New 
Testament. ...

"I have demonstrated that the W-H [Westcott-Hort] critical theory and 
history of the text are erroneous."

What has been said of Zane Hodges can be said of Dr. Pickering. He does 
support some slight modification of the Received Text, but it is also plain 
that he unhesitatingly rejects the Westcott-Hort text. 

DR. ALFRED MARTIN, Vice-President and Dean of Education Emeritus of Moody 
Bible Institute in Chicago, Illinois. For his Doctor of Theology 
dissertation at the Graduate School of Dallas Theological Seminary in 1951, 
Dr. Martin presented "A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual 
Theory." Consider an excerpt from this:

"Bible-believing Christian had better be careful what he says about the 
Textus Receptus, for the question is not at all the precise wording of that 
text, but rather a choice between two different kinds of texts, a fuller 
one and a shorter one. ...

"The present generation of Bible students, having been reared on Westcott    
and Hort, have for the most part accepted the theory without independent or 
critical examination. To the average student of the Greek New Testament 
today it is unthinkable to question the theory at least in its basic 
premises. Even to imply that one believes the Textus Receptus to be nearer 
the original text than the Westcott-Hort text is, lays one open to the 
suspicion of gross ignorance or unmitigated bigotry. ...

"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 on the subject--that is, 
in the present century--following mainly the Westcott-Hort principles and 
method, have been made largely by men who deny the inspiration of the 
Bible. ...

"Textual criticism cannot be divorced entirely from theology. No matter how 
great a Greek scholar a man may be, or no matter how great an authority on 
the textual evidence, his conclusions must always be open to suspicion if 
he does not accept the Bible as the very Word of God. ...

"The great difficulty in New Testament textual criticism today, which makes 
it impossible for Bible-believing Christians to be sanguine about the 
results of present research, is the almost universally held view among 
critics of the relative nature of truth. Textual criticism has become more 
and more subjective since Westcott and Hort opened the door of subjectivism 
wide."

DR. JAKOB VAN BRUGGEN, Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the Reformed 
Theological College in Kampen, The Netherlands. Dr. Van Bruggen obtained 
his doctor's degree under Prof. Dr. W.C. can Unnik (Utecht). Consider his 
position on the Bible text as published in The Ancient Text of the New 
Testament. This was a lecture which he preached in the Netherlands in 
December 1975:

"One can even say that the modern textual criticism of the New Testament is 
based on the one fundamental conviction that the true text of the New 
Testament is at least not found in the great majority of the manuscripts. 
The text which the Greek church has read for more than 1,000 years, and 
which the churches of the Reformation have followed for centuries in their 
Bible translations, is now with certainty regarded as defective and 
deficient: a text to be rejected. ...

"This rejection of the traditional text, that is the text preserved and 
handed down in the churches, is hardly written or thought about any more in 
the 20th century: it is a fait accompli. ... 

"The textus receptus, which stands very close to the Byzantine text, is 
considered a "tyrant" that finally "died a slow death." ... It is strange 
that in the realm of modern textual criticism all types of searchers and 
skeptics are given a place, but that those who revert to a former certainty 
are disqualified as renegades. ... 

"Over against this modern textual criticism, we plead for rehabilitation of 
the ancient and well-known text. This means that we do not dismiss this    
text which is found in a large majority of the textual witnesses and which 
underlies all the time-honored Bible translations of the past, but prize 
and use it."

What we have said about Zane Hodges and Wilbur Pickering is also true for 
Dr. Van Bruggen. He supports efforts to modify the Received Text along 
lines he calls strict Majority principles. It is plain, though, that he 
rejects the Westcott- Hort text and stands for the Received Text in most 
details.

It is important to point out that the facts brought to light in Dr. Van 
Bruggen's lecture make it plain that the theory presented so matter-of-
factly by great numbers of Christian scholars is becoming increasingly 
debunked, not only by evangelicals but by liberals as well.

A similar situation exists in regard to the theory of Darwinian evolution. 
Even secular scientists are rejecting the basic tenets of evolution in 
rapidly increasing numbers. And yet, though they have nothing better with 
which to replace Darwinian theories, they do not wish to admit that the 
entire idea is an utter falsehood. And they refuse even to consider the 
possibility that divine creation could be true; therefore, they cling 
resolutely to the broad conclusions produced by Darwinian thinking even 
while having rejected that thinking! 

Likewise, the pillars of Westcott-Hortism, the theory of a Syrian recension 
and the neutral text concept, have been torn down. It was with these 
theories that Westcott-Hort and their followers built the Greek texts in 
which a few supposedly older manuscripts overthrow the witness of the 
majority. Yet even with the pillars pulled down, the foundationless 
building is still upheld by modern textual scholars. This is very strange. 
Is it because these scholars have a prejudice against the God-honored 
Textus Receptus and for some reason do not desire to see it returned to its 
proper and reasonable position as the preserved Word of God? In my opinion, 
the facts point to this conclusion.

I will hasten to mention a few other evangelical scholars who teach that 
the common evangelical theories about the TR are wrong.

BRUCE LACKEY. Dr. Lackey, who died December 1, 1988, taught at Tennessee 
Temple in Chattanooga, Tennessee, for nineteen years and was the dean of 
the Bible school department. He pastored the Lakewood Baptist Church of 
Chattanooga, Tennessee, for eight years, and pastored two other churches 
before that. The last few years of his life he traveled as a Bible 
conference speaker and authored several books. He was an accomplished 
musician, a highly respected Bible teacher, and was proficient in the Greek 
language. He was a diligent student of the Greek Received Text. Dr. Lackey 
held that the Received Text is the preserved and perfect Word of God. In 
his book Can You Trust Your Bible Dr. Lackey states:

"The King James Version was the only Bible available to most English-
speaking people for centuries. The manuscripts from which it was translated 
were used by the majority of believers through the centuries. Thus they 
represent the Word of God which He promised to preserve for all    
generations. "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a 
furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou 
shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" (Psalm 12:6-7). "For the 
Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all 
generations" (Psalm 100:5).

"Almost every modern version has been made from manuscripts which were 
rather recently discovered, though they claim to be more ancient. These are 
highly touted to be more accurate than those from which the King James 
Version came, and have led to the charge that many errors exist in the KJV. 
It is the author's experience that this has caused many people to doubt 
whether there is any Bible in the world today that is accurate, infallible, 
or dependable. ...

"When the so-called facts of textual criticism produce doubt in the Bible 
which people have had for centuries, they should be considered as no better 
than the so-called facts of evolution. In reality, there are very few 
"facts" in textual criticism today. It is very difficult to get textual 
critics to agree on their conclusions which are drawn from the principles 
which most of them accept. Even a cursory study of the material available 
on the subject today reveals that there is much personal opinion and bias 
regarding which manuscripts are the oldest or best. ...

"The most serious problem created by the multiplicity of versions and half-
truths from textual critics is that many believe that we have no accurate, 
infallible Bible anywhere in the world today. To say that it exists in all 
the versions is to say, in effect, that you can not find it, since no one 
can agree on the best way to resolve all the differences in the versions.

"To say that the various differences in versions are unimportant is to 
raise a basic question: Why make them? If there is no basic difference, why 
do we need them? ... Every version claims to be "more accurate ... more 
understandable," but when faced with the problem of difference with others, 
almost every scholar, professor, translator, and textual critic says that 
no major doctrine is affected, and that the differences are minor and 
relatively unimportant. One wonders if the motive for more and more 
translations might not be commercial, rather than spiritual.

"The fact is that many a Christian has had doubts, fears, and skepticism 
instilled in his mind by these claims of discovering "more accurate 
manuscripts." ...

"If we believe God's promises of preservation, we must believe that the 
Bible which has been available to all generations is that which God has 
preserved. Conversely, that which was hidden was not God's truth, `which 
endureth to all generations'" (pp. 48-52).

DR. MYRON CEDARHOLM, retired President of Maranatha Baptist Bible College 
and Graduate School of Theology, Watertown, Wisconsin. During Dr. Cedar
holm's tenure at Maranatha, the school stood resolutely for the Received 
Text. Following was the school's position statement in those days [sadly, 
the position has changed since then]:
   
"Maranatha Baptist Bible College is dedicated to the defense of the 
Massoretic Text, the Textus Receptus, and the Authorized Version and uses 
them in its classes for study and the Authorized Version in the churches 
for preaching. Maranatha is the first college to organize on its campus a 
Dean Burgon Society chapter, which society exists for the defense of the 
traditional Baptist texts."

DR. JAMES HOLLOWOOD, retired professor of Theology and Philosophy at 
Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Graduate School of Theology, Watertown, 
Wisconsin. Dr. Hollowood is a member of the Dean Burgon Society which 
stands for the Received Text and the King James Bible. Dr. Hollowood gave 
editorial supervision to the publication of Evaluating Versions of the New 
Testament by Everett Fowler, and he stands without hesitation for the 
Received Text.

EVERETT FOWLER, author of Evaluating Versions of the New Testament, had an 
engineering degree from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, 
Massachusetts. The following is from the Foreword to Evaluating Versions:

"Mr. Fowler held the office of a deacon for 50 years as well as other 
positions in the First Baptist Church of New York ... known from its 
beginning in 1711 as a center of fundamentalism. It was his privilege to 
sit and serve under the outstanding fundamentalist pastor, Dr. Isaac M. 
Haldeman, whom God used throughout a long pastorate (1884-1933) to preserve 
that church from modernism. To the glory of God, First Baptist Church has, 
from its beginning until this day, enjoyed pastors preaching from the 
Authorized Version and proclaiming the truths thereof as the very Word of 
God. Though Mr. Fowler was not an ordained preacher and did not possess an 
advanced degree in theology, he studied diligently from the Greek New 
Testament for more than 30 years. It was in 1953 that he attended Greek 
classes with the express goal of reading the Greek New Testament.

"After reading the Nestle text several times Mr. Fowler began to note and, 
later, to list the significant omissions and instances which did not 
correspond with his Biblical knowledge. ... This treatise is the product of 
his findings through hours of labor over the years, beginning with the 
listing of differences in the Nestle text and growing through the years by 
use of various helps and methods. Not only did Mr. Fowler regularly read 
the Greek New Testament, but he also read his English Bible. ... For some 
40 years he read the Bible through twice a year in English." 

DONALD T. CLARKE, former Dean and Chairman of the Greek Department at Bible 
Truth Institute, Sunbury, Pennsylvania; author of Bible Version Manual. 
Thomas E. Baker, President of Bible Truth Institute says of Donald Clarke: 

"[He] is the most practical proponent of the Greek New Testament of anyone 
I know. His knowledge has come through his dedication to the Holy Spirit 
and a diligent comparison of the manuscripts of the Word of God. His 
conclusions are clear and positive in relation to the history of the 
Scriptures. In the Introduction to Bible Version Manual the position of its 
author is clearly stated: `God has not only inspired His Word, but He has 
also preserved it down through the corridors of time. I rest in the 
knowledge that God has safeguarded the Bible in the past from the wicked    
poison of vain philosophy and will continue to do so in the future.'"

JAY P. GREEN, SR., General Editor and Translator of The Interlinear Bible, 
now in its fourth edition. The Interlinear Bible employs the Hebrew 
Masoretic text and the Greek Received Text published by the Trinitarian 
Bible Society in 1976, based upon the text followed in the Authorized 
Version. I will quote some excerpts from the Introduction to this volume to 
show that Green is unswerving in his defense of the Majority Text. Please 
keep in mind that there is some difference between a so-called Majority 
Text and the Textus Receptus upon which the old Protestant versions are 
based, but it is also true that the differences are, to say the least, very 
few and minute when compared with those between a Westcott-Hort type text 
and the TR. It also should be pointed out that many who defend the TR and 
KJV would not be happy with Green's own translation which he called the 
King James II, but which actually is a new and different translation. These 
things, though, do not detract from the fact that Jay Green is a scholar 
who defends the Received Text and rejects the Westcott-Hort text as 
corrupted.

"Considering, then, that the words of this Book [the Bible] are the ones 
that will judge every person who has lived in all the ages, how important 
it must be that the very words of God, and no other, shall be contained in 
a portable book, to be distributed far and wide. ... With these 
considerations in mind, and in holy fear inculcated by our God, we have 
sought to provide in The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible all the 
original God-breathed Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words. And after much 
laborious study, accompanied by much prayer, it was concluded that this 
could best be done by providing you with the two attested texts that alone 
have been uniquely preserved whole, having been accepted in all 
generations, in all lands, by the vast majority of God's people as their 
`received texts.' ...

"These new versions [of the Bible] are not only marked by additions, but by 
subtractions (enough to make up at least four whole pages of words, 
phrases, sentences, and verses). And the words left out are attested to as 
God's words by overwhelming evidence contained in all the Greek 
manuscripts, in the ancient versions, in the writings of the early fathers; 
and these from every inhabited land on the earth, anywhere that 
Christianity has been introduced by God the Spirit. ... What then is the 
evidence these Bible-alterers offer to persuade you to give up the precious 
words they have removed from their version? Mainly, they cite two 
manuscripts, admittedly old (c. 300 a.d.), but also admittedly carelessly 
executed."

DONALD R. WHITE, editor of the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, 
published by Baker Book House. I will quote from the Preface to this 
volume:

"The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament ... is based on the Greek Text 
of Stephens, 1550, which (with the Elzevir Text of 1624) is commonly called 
the Textus Receptus, or the Received Text, from which the New Testaments of 
the King James Version, William Tyndale's Bible, Luther's German Bible, 
Olivetan's French Bible, the Geneva Bible, and many other vernacular    
versions of the Protestant Reformation were translated. It is the 
"Traditional Text" that has been read and preserved by the Greek Orthodox 
Church through the centuries. From it came the Peshitta, the Italic, 
Celtic, Gallic, and Gothic Bibles, the medieval versions of the evangelical 
Waldenses and Albigenses, and other versions suppressed by Rome during the 
Middle Ages. Though many copies were ruthlessly hunted down and destroyed, 
the Received Text has been preserved by an almighty Providence. This 
interlinear text maintains the basic integrity of the Received Text (also 
called the Majority Text, since it is represented by 95 percent of the 
manuscript evidence). This is in sharp contrast to the Westcott-Hort 
tradition (which leans heavily on two manuscripts of the unreliable 
Alexandrian Text type), the shaky foundation of many of today's versions. 
In the sixteenth century, Erasmus and the Reformers knowingly rejected the 
Gnostic readings of Codex Vaticanus and other very old uncial (i.e., all 
capital-letter) manuscripts, whose variant readings they judged to be 
corrupt. They regarded such dubious `treasures' as the products of scribes 
who had doctored the text to suit their own private interpretations. They 
also rejected Jerome's Latin Vulgate as a corrupt version and as an 
improper basis for vernacular translations" (Donald R. White, Editor, pp. 
xi, xii).

PHILIP MAURO was a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United 
States and one of the foremost patent lawyers of his day. Mauro is the 
author of Which Version? Authorized or Revised?, and a quote from this book 
leaves no doubt as to the position of this brilliant man in regard to the 
textual and translation issue:

"It will be seen, therefore, that the making of a Greek Text, as the first 
step in producing an English Version, involves the immense labor of 
examining, for every disputed word and passage, the numerous manuscripts, 
ancient versions, and quotations now known to exist, and also the making of 
a decision in each case where there is a conflict between the various 
witnesses. This is a highly complicated task; and for the performance of it 
other qualities besides Greek and English scholarship are required. For 
example, one must settle at the outset what degree of credibility is to be 
imputed to the respective manuscripts; and this is where, in our opinion, 
the compilers of the Greek Text used as the basis for the R.V. [the Revised 
Version of 1881] went far astray, with the result that the Text adopted by 
them was much inferior to that used in the translation of the A.V. Our 
reasons for this opinion, which will be given later on, are such as to be 
easily understood."

JOSEPH C. PHILPOT. Of Philpot, True or False? records: "One time fellow of 
Worcester College, a faithful Minister of the Gospel, and Editor of The 
Gospel Standard 1849-1869 ... one of the greatest Hebrew and Greek scholars 
of his day, and certainly a deeply spiritual man with a sanctified 
discernment of the evil trend of the apostate church" (p. 21). Referring to 
the King James Bible and the call for a revision, Philpot held this 
opinion:

"We appreciate any alteration as a measure that the smallest sprinkling of 
good would deluge us with a flood of evil. The following are our reasons. 
1. Who are to undertake it? Into whose hands would the translation    
fall? ... Of course they must be learned men, great critics, scholars, and 
divines. But these are notoriously either tainted with popery [a reference 
to the Tractarian movement within the Anglican church--of which Westcott 
and Hort and others of the translation company were members or 
sympathizers] or infidelity ... 2. Again, it would unsettle the minds of 
thousands, as to which was the Word of God--the old translation or the new. 
What a door it would open for the workings of infidelity. ... 3. ... There 
would be two Bibles spread throughout all the land, the old and the new, 
and what confusion would this create in almost every place! ... 4. If the 
new translation were once to begin, where would it end? It is good to let 
well enough alone, as it is easier to mar than to mend. The Socinianising 
Neologian would blot out `GOD' in I Timothy 3:16, and strike out I John 5:7 
as an interpolation. The Puseyite would mend it to suit his Tractarian 
views. ... Once set up a notice, `The old Bible to be mended,' and there 
would be plenty of workmen, who, trying to mend the cover, would pull the 
pages to pieces. ... Instead of our good old Saxon Bible, simple and solid, 
with few words obsolete, and alike majestic and beautiful, we should have a 
modern English translation in pert and flippant language of the day. ... We 
should be traitors in every sense of the word if we consented to give it up 
to be rifled by the sacrilegious hands of the Puseyites, concealed papists, 
German Neologian, infidel divines, Armenians, Socinians, and the whole 
tribe of enemies of GOD and godliness" (True or False pp. 21-23).

Looking back upon the history of Bible translation during the past 100 
years, it is evident that this man was a true prophet of God!

WILLIAM T. BRUNER, Th. M., Ph.D. Dr. Bruner once held the typical position 
of today's scholarship, considering the Westcott-Hort text a vast 
improvement upon the ancient Textus Receptus and the versions (such as the 
KJV) based upon it. The views of this scholar were changed, though, through 
a careful reading of the studies of men such as Burgon and Hoskier. 
Bruner's own testimony is contained in a letter to Dr. David Otis Fuller:

"Dear Dr. Fuller: 

"On May 12, 1970, you wrote me a very kind letter and sent me some sample 
materials from your book Which Bible? You might as well have been shooting 
a pop gun at a stone wall. My mind was so strongly fortified in the 
doctrine of Westcott and Hort that I could not for one moment consider the 
King James Bible.

"Had I not studied Textual Criticism under the great Dr. A.T. Robertson? I 
thought that you were just one of those die-hard Fundamentalists who were 
striving to keep the Christian world under the bondage of traditionalism. 
Such men are interested only in pleasing the people by catering to their 
ignorance, prejudice and sentimentality!

"But just a few weeks ago I happened to read your two books, Which Bible? 
and True or False? For the first time a little new light shone in. I saw 
that there is another side to the argument. Dr. Robertson had not given us 
all the facts.

"As I perused your selections from Burgon and Hoskier, the idols of B and    
Aleph started to totter, and soon they fell off their pedestals. That was 
all I needed. I bought a copy of the Textus Receptus and am now using it. 
Thanks to you ... 

"Sincerely yours,

"William T. Bruner, Th.M., Ph.D.

DICK WALKER, Bible Translator. Walker is another scholar whose views were 
changed and whose heart was turned toward the Received Text after a careful 
study of the writings edited by Dr. Fuller. We have the testimony of this 
Bible translator in a letter to Cecil Carter, an elder for the past 50 
years in a Brethren assembly in Canada.

"July 13, 1976

"Dear Brother Cecil:

"Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ and in the joy of knowing Him, whom to 
know is life eternal. I well remember your visit a few years back when you 
expressed your deep concern to me over so many Christians who are using 
translations not based on the Textus Receptus (from which we get the King 
James Version). Also you gave me a copy of the book Which Bible? by David 
Otis Fuller.

"I received your book and exhortation at `arms length.' I considered your 
concern genuine but perhaps naive. After all I had graduated from a 
seminary in California which had one of the highest accreditations on the 
west coast. I had majored in New Testament, taken two and one-half years of 
New Testament Greek from a scholar who had his Ph.D. in Greek studies and 
who also had many years of related semitic studies. My studies also 
included a course in the text and canon of the New Testament as well as 
writing my graduation thesis titled `The Exegetical Value of the Greek 
Participle.' I was satisfied with the science of textual criticism and the 
`Nestles' text, which is based on the Westcott and Hort text.

"I never knew then how mistaken I was! I had forgotten, or ignored, in 
Paul's exhortation to the Corinthians, the folly of applying human 
reasoning to God's pattern of revelation, ` ... that in the wisdom of God 
the world by wisdom knew not God ...' I Cor. 1:21 (this is true both of 
Himself and His ways). I did not realize that I, like so many others who 
love the Lord Jesus, had accepted unquestioningly the unproved and 
unfounded reasoning that the `oldest manuscripts are the best.' I had 
placed my confidence in the scholarship of others who have undoubtedly also 
accepted the same logic while at the same time ignoring the fact that men 
of God were quoting from the last 12 verses of Mark (which verses are not 
found in the so called `oldest and best' manuscripts) and that the writings 
of these men of God who quote from the last 12 verses in Mark predate the 
`oldest and best,' i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

"I praise God for sending you to me and for the kind and loving manner in 
which you shared these truths with me before I commenced the translation of 
the Carrier New Testament. I do pray that the Lord Jesus will continue to    
use your many, many years of solid research into this attack on the Word of 
God for the edification of other sincere but deceived believers. To the end 
that the day will come when believers in our Lord Jesus Christ will cease 
from using translations which are not the Word of God but corruptions of 
the Word of God.

"Sincerely in Christ,

"Dick Walker, Bible Translator"

DR. FRANK LOGSDON. Dr. Logsdon was on the committees which produced the New 
American Standard Version and the Amplified Version. Logsdon was a highly 
respected pastor and Bible conference speaker. He pastored Moody Church for 
a number of years, as well as other churches. After reading Dr. David Otis 
Fuller's most excellent books, Which Bible? and True or False?, he writes 
as follows:

"I carried these titles with me all the summer long, and immersed myself in 
them. I have never underscored books so much as I have done in them. They 
enhanced my appreciation of the K.J.V. as the true revelation of God as no 
other writings. As a member of the committee in the production of the 
Amplified New Testament, we conscientiously and honestly felt it was a mark 
of intelligence to follow `Westcott and Hort.' Now what you have in these 
books strikes terror to my heart. It proves alarmingly that being 
conscientiously wrong is a most dangerous state of being. God help us to be 
more cautious, lest we fall into the snare of the arch deceiver."

In a personal letter to Cecil Carter of British Columbia, Canada, Dr. 
Logsdon writes with reference to the New American Standard Version:

"When questions began to reach me, at first I was quite offended. However, 
in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right 
about the N.A.S.V. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Dr. 
Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the 
N.A.S.V. ... I could not add much to what Dr. Fuller has in his books, 
copies of which you possess. I can aver that the project (N.A.S.V.) was 
produced by thoroughly sincere men who had the best intentions. The 
product, however, is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters 
in these already troublous times. God bless you as you press the battle!"

We could continue with this listing of scholars who uphold the Received 
Text, but this is sufficient for our purposes. It is the position of men 
such as these that is called "ludicrous" by the evangelical professor in 
India, that is called "pseudo-scholarly" by Kurt Aland, and that is ignored 
and belittled in the letter from the evangelical leader James Boice. The 
fact remains that there ARE a number of scholarly men who remain convinced 
that the TR is the preserved Word of God and that the Westcott-Hort text is 
corrupted.

It is not an evidence of superior intelligence or spirituality to ignore or 
belittle this historical position. In fact, the doctrine of preservation 
and the weight of history is on the side of those who support the TR. It is 
not those who honor the TR who are making a new doctrine; these men are    
simply standing in the time-honored tradition of loving and defending the 
Received Text. Even Westcott and Hort admitted that the Textus Receptus was 
the dominate text throughout the world from at least the third century. 
This is an undeniable historical fact. Are we not warned by God against 
removing the ancient landmark?

MYTH #6: 
THE ISSUES ARE TOO COMPLEX FOR THE AVERAGE CHRISTIAN TO UNDERSTAND

This is the last point in our series on Myths About the King James Bible. 
Consider again the letter from Evangelical leader James Boice to the 
missionary doctor, Tom Hale:

"The situation is somewhat complex, and many people do not understand it as 
a result of that complexity. But let me try to explain what is 
involved. ... Let me say that the concerns of some of these people [those 
who defend the King James Bible and its underlying textual basis] are 
undoubtedly good. They are zealous for the Word of God and very much 
concerned lest liberal or any other scholarship enter in to pervert it. But 
unfortunately, the basis on which they are operating is wrong, and I have 
always tried to do what I could in a gentle way to lead them to appreciate 
good, current evangelical scholarship where the Greek text and the 
translations are concerned" (Letter from James Boice, leader with the 
International Council of Biblical Inerrancy, to missionary doctor Tom 
Hale).

As noted earlier in this series of articles, these words were directed to a 
missionary medical doctor in South Asia in response to that doctor's 
queries about the issue of Bible texts and translations. The medical doctor 
had read several books and booklets I had given him. In particular he had 
read Which Bible? edited by David Otis Fuller, The King James Version 
Defended by the late Dr. Edward F. Hills, and several smaller works by the 
Trinitarian Bible Society and others.

Note the paternalistic, condescending attitude of Dr. Boice toward those 
who would defend the Textus Receptus. It would appear that there is no 
possibility that Dr. Boice is the one who is in error, the one who is 
following unsound "scholarship"! Of course he can maintain this kind of 
attitude toward those who have not studied the issues very thoroughly, or 
who, in his opinion, do not possess sufficient intelligence or education to 
understand the issues. But if he were writing to some of the men we have 
mentioned in the last section, he would doubtless demonstrate a different 
attitude entirely. Would he try to lead Dr. Edward Hills, Dr. David Otis 
Fuller, or Dr. Donald Waite "in a gentle way to appreciate good, current 
evangelical scholarship where the Greek text and the translations are 
concerned"? 

Would he say to the learned translators of the King James Bible and other 
mighty Reformation Bibles that "the situation is somewhat complex, 
brethren, and many people do not understand it as a result of that 
complexity. But let me try to explain what is involved"! 

I'm sure you understand what I am saying. This condescending, paternalistic    
attitude is a common feature of the writings of those who despise the TR. 
Surely they know that the difference between their views and those of TR 
supporters is not a matter of greater and lesser intelligence, but they 
often imply that this is the case. There is a myth here.

The most important issue in all the world is to know what and where is the 
Word of God. By that Word we are born again; in it we find eternal life; by 
it we live. As the Lord Jesus said, "It is written, That man shall not live 
by bread alone, but by every word of God" (Luke 4:4). This being the case, 
we must have these words--all of them.

Since the issue before us is so crucial for the souls and destinies of men, 
is it unreasonable to believe that God would make it possible for the 
average saint, and especially for the average church leader, to know the 
truth of the matter? God loves the world so much that He gave His only 
begotten Son to suffer and die, and He has given a pure revelation of this 
love in a Book. Has this God allowed the issues surrounding the 
preservation and translation of the Bible to be as complex as Dr. Boice 
says they are? "The situation is somewhat complex, and many people do not 
understand it as a result of that complexity." Can it be so?

I am reminded of Matthew 11:25-27--"At that time Jesus answered and said, I 
thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these 
things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even 
so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered 
unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, and he to whomsoever the 
Son will reveal him."

I am reminded of I Corinthians 1:26-29--"For ye see your calling, brethren, 
how that NOT MANY WISE men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many 
noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to 
confound the wise; and GOD HATH CHOSEN THE WEAK THINGS of the world to 
confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and 
things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, 
to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his 
presence."

I am reminded of Acts 4:13--"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and 
John, and perceived that they were UNLEARNED AND IGNORANT MEN, they 
marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus."

I am reminded of 2 Corinthians 11:3--"But I fear, lest by any means, as the 
serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be 
corrupted from THE SIMPLICITY that is in Christ."

I am reminded of Colossians 2:8--"Beware lest any man spoil you through 
philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments 
of the world, and not after Christ."

I am reminded of 1 John 2:27--"But the anointing which ye have received of 
him abideth in you, and YE NEED NOT THAT ANY MAN TEACH YOU: but as the same 
anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even 
as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."   

This is not to say God does not call and use scholarly men. Certainly He 
does, but this is not the normal situation in the churches of God. A 
few--but not many--wise, mighty and noble are called. The common man has 
more often received the truth than the wise and mighty, who have more often 
than not stumbled in their pride. Even when the Son of God walked the earth 
such was the case. The religious scholars discounted his eternal wisdom, 
while "the common people heard him gladly" (Mark 12:37).

The Bible enumerates the qualifications for a pastor, but nowhere does God 
say that he must be a scholar. He must be trained in the Word of God; he 
must be a man of study; he must be ready and able to teach--but there is no 
qualification that he be a scholar, that he possess a M.Th. or Ph.D. Where 
in the Bible does God say that a pastor must master Greek and Hebrew, even? 
This being the case, God simply is not going to make the issue surrounding 
the question of the Bible translations so complex that the average church 
leader cannot readily know the truth of the matter.

How has God made the matter simple in His Word? First, He has given a pure 
Word. Second, He has promised to preserve this Word. Third, it is evident 
that a certain textual family, a certain type of Bible, was preserved and 
published throughout the world across the centuries. Fourth, this text was 
adopted by the Reformation translators and editors. Fifth, this is the 
pure, preserved Word of God and should not be discarded for a text which 
was rejected in past centuries by God's people.

These facts are not complex at all. And THEY ARE FACTS, by the way. There 
are certain details and questions in the midst of these simple facts which 
admittedly are complex. There are things hard to be answered. But the 
basic, overall issues are quite simple and straightforward; so much so that 
the average man of God can grasp them and know where the Word of God is 
today.

I therefore reject Dr. Boice's contention that "the situation is somewhat 
complex, and many people do not understand it as a result of that 
complexity." The truth of the matter is that the situation is rather simple 
and many scholars stumble at the simplicity of the truth!

We have looked at six myths which are continually promoted by those who are 
opposed to the idea that the pure Word of God is preserved in that Text and 
in those Versions which dominated non-Catholic Christian life for the past 
nineteen centuries. Obviously no attempt has been made to answer all of the 
questions which can be asked on this subject. Our goal was singular: 
Brethren, beware of myths which are disguised as truth.
