[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 one in a set of five booklets.]

MYTHS ABOUT THE KING JAMES BIBLE
By David Cloud

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

In the summer of 1985 Dr. Tom Hale, a medical doctor working in Nepal, 
visited our home in Kathmandu and began a discussion about Bible versions. 
He was involved with a Nepali Bible translation and wanted to know what I 
could share with him about the texts and versions. We had an interesting 
time going through some of the reasons why the new versions differ from the 
old Protestant ones, and when he returned to his hospital in central Nepal, 
we carried on our conversation via correspondence. I also gave him some 
books on the subject, including, if I remember correctly, Edward F. Hills's 
Defending the King James Bible, and D.O. Fuller's Which 
Bible? On July 28, Dr. Hale wrote the following:

"Thank you very much for your long and thoughtful letter to me about 
the Greek texts. I greatly appreciate the time you took to answer me, and I 
have found what you have written to be most informative, and indeed, 
worrisome. I hadn't realized that the battleground, as it were, is in the 
area of the Greek texts." 

I was amazed at this. The man is a student of the Scriptures and of Bible 
theology and has sat under the ministry of key evangelical leaders, yet he 
had never heard that the major differences between the new versions and the 
KJV results from the different Greek texts upon which they are founded. 

As time passed it became evident that Dr. Hale had rejected the Received 
Text in favor of the modern critical text. A chief factor in this bad 
decision was the counsel he received from Dr. James M. Boice, pastor of the 
Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, and head of the International 
Council on Biblical Inerrancy. Hale wrote to Boice to seek his opinion on 
Bible versions, and Hale sent me a copy of Boice's letter when he closed 
our conversations on the subject. The following statements from this 
evangelical leader reveal how multitudes of Christians have been led to 
reject the Bible of their forefathers:

"There are some in this country and elsewhere who are very zealous for the 
textus receptus, prepared by the humanistic scholar, Erasmus, and used as 
the basis for the King James translation. This has led some, quite unwisely 
in my judgment, to defend the King James Version as the only true and 
faithful English text.

"Let me say that the concerns of some of these people 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. ...

"The situation is somewhat complex, and many people do not understand it as 
a result of that complexity. ... 

"What this boils down to is that, although there are large numbers of 
manuscripts that support the textus receptus, these do not have a weight 
proportionate to their numbers. In fact, if one or two very old manuscripts 
disagree with a reading common to this very large number of European 
manuscripts, the one or two early manuscripts should perhaps be preferred. 
This is what the scholarly editions of the Greek text do. They attempt to 
apply sound principles of judgment to determine the oldest and best 
readings which, however, as I have pointed out, are not necessarily the 
readings of the majority of the manuscripts.

"Now let me say a word about the textus receptus. Sometimes people who 
object to modern English versions of the Bible do so on the basis that one 
or more of the translators is less than evangelical, perhaps even liberal 
in theology. They defend the King James on that basis, because all of those 
translators were godly men. However, in doing that, they overlook the fact 
that Erasmus, who produced the Greek text on which the King James Bible is 
based, was actually a humanist. He was not supportive of the reformation 
and took issue with Luther in his book on the Freedom of the Will. This is 
not to say that Erasmus was not a good scholar. He was. He was perhaps the 
best scholar of his day; but he was a humanist, and if bias is supposed to 
enter in on that basis, it would presumably have entered into his text and 
thus have contaminated the KJV. Moreover, Erasmus did not have very many 
texts to work with. ... He was a great scholar; his Greek comes quite close 
to what was originally written. However, people who defend the textus 
receptus ardently should know these facts. It is not a Divinely given and 
specially preserved text of the New Testament.

"Let me say personally that the English text that I work from most often is 
the New International Version. It is not perfect, but it is a very good 
text and may well win a place in the contemporary church similar to the 
place held by the King James Version for so long. ...

"Of course, all these matters are spelled out in the various textbooks 
dealing with textual criticism. I am particularly appreciative of the works 
of Bruce Metzger, the best textual scholar I know. But you can find those 
books yourself. What you were asking for was my own understanding of the 
situation and problem as an evangelical scholar committed to inerrancy and 
biblical exposition" (Letter from James M. Boice, Tenth Presbyterian 
Church, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Dr. Thomas Hale, United Mission to 
Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal, September 13, 1985).

I have quoted this lengthy letter because it presents such a typical 
defense of the modern versions. Though Boice's reasoning sounds plausible, 
when examined carefully, a great many of his assumptions must be called 
"myths." The Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines myth as "a 
belief or set of beliefs, often unproven or false, that have accrued around 
a person, phenomenon, or institution." That is exactly what we find in    
modern textual criticism. 

I identify the following myths in Boice's letter: (1) Erasmus is a 
"humanist." (2) Erasmus and the Reformation editors had extremely limited 
access to manuscript witness. (3) True scholars reject the Received Text 
and the KJV. (4) The subject of Bible versions and texts is too complex for 
the average person to comprehend. (5) The readings of the Sinaiticus and 
Vaticanus (which Boice calls "one or two early manuscripts") are to be 
preferred over the majority of manuscripts. (6) The doctrine of Bible 
preservation does not guarantee a perfect Bible. Boice thinks the Received 
Text used during the past 450 years was corrupted, and he admits that there 
is no perfect text or version today. His concept of preservation is very 
weak. He tells Hale about the supposed weakness and errors of Bible editors 
of old, but he does not remind Hale that God is the One who has promised to 
keep His Word. (7) Modernists can be trusted in their testimony regarding 
Bible texts and versions. James Boice pointed Dr. Hale to the writings of 
Bruce Metzger, a modernist who works for the radical National Council of 
Churches in America. Metzger is the head of the continuing committee for 
the perverted Revised Standard Version, and thinks the Old Testament is 
filled with myths and errors. I have documented Metzger's heresies in 
Unholy Hands on God's Holy Book: A Report on the United Bible Societies, 
available from Way of Life Literature.

In this series of booklets we will deal with most of the myths which Boice 
delineated.

In the late 1800s, after taking a long, hard look at the theories of Drs. 
Westcott and Hort, <Brook John Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort were 
professors at Cambridge University and were the editors of the Greek text 
underlying the English Revised Version of 1881. They were modernists.> the 
brilliant biblical scholar John Burgon referred to these myths. Most of the 
significant differences between modern versions and the Authorized Version 
are the result of Westcott and Hort's textual theories. Burgon's scholarly 
evaluation as described by Philip Mauro, one of the foremost patent lawyers 
of the United States of the last century, is an appropriate way to begin 
these studies:

Dean Burgon is not amiss when he characterizes the whole theory as "mere 
moonshine." Indeed, it seems to us to be either a case of solemn trifling 
with a matter of supreme importance or a deliberate attempt to lead astray 
the English-speaking nations, and through them the whole world, and that 
without the support of a scintilla of real proof, but rather in the face of 
all the pertinent facts. As Dean Burgon, in his exhaustive analysis of Dr. 
Hort's theory, says:

"`Bold assertions abound (as usual with this respected writer) but proof, 
he never attempts any. Not a particle of "evidence" is adduced.' And again:

"`But we demur to this weak imagination (which only by courtesy can be 
called a "theory") on every ground, and are constrained to remonstrate with 
our would-be guides at every step. They assume everything. They prove 
nothing. And the facts of the case lend them no favor at all.'
   
"Truly, that with which we are here dealing is not a theory, but a dream; a 
thing composed entirely of gratuitous assumptions, "destitute not only of 
proof, but even of probability" (Philip Mauro, "Which Version," True or 
False, p. 114). 

"Moonshine."

"Not a particle of evidence is adduced."

"They assume everything; they prove nothing."

"Not a theory, but a dream."

"A thing composed entirely of gratuitous assumptions."

"Destitute not only of proof, but even of probability."

Burgon was talking about myths surrounding the Received Text and the King 
James Bible.

It is our conviction that this subject abounds with myths, myths which are 
promulgated at most Bible institutions and held commonly among Christians. 

MY TESTIMONY 

I was converted through the witness of the King James Bible the summer of 
1973, and the overwhelming desire of my life as a new Christian was to 
learn the blessed Word of God. I had been deceived for many years, and I 
wanted never again to be in that condition. The Lord Jesus Christ had given 
me some promises. In John 7:17 He said, "If any man will do his will, 
he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of 
myself." The Lord Jesus said if a man sets his heart to do the will of 
God, He will show that man sound doctrine. That man will not be deceived by 
error. Further, in John 8:31-32 Christ said, "If ye continue in my 
word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the 
truth shall make you free." Again, this is a promise for the man who 
determines to continue in the Word of God, to read it, study it, memorize 
it, meditate in it, love and obey it. 

Buoyed by these blessed promises, I have given myself for twenty years to 
serious study of the Word of God and to attempt to do the will of Christ. 
For the first several years of my Christian life I probably spent an 
average of eight hours a day studying the Bible. I have tried always to be 
willing to do His will, and, knowing the deceitfulness and wickedness of my 
own heart, often I have cried out to the Lord that if unknowingly I am 
unwilling to do His will, He would make me willing! It has cost friends; it 
has cost habits which I loved; it has cost music which I loved; it has cost 
going to one of the parts of the world where I least wanted to go and 
enduring some very hard and fearful circumstances. It cost becoming perhaps 
the most unpopular preacher in an entire country as the national fellowship 
there defamed me and tried to have me evicted because of my stand upon 
Bible truth. If I had simply kept quiet about some unpopular doctrinal 
matters, the door was before me to become a popular conference and church    
speaker in that land. Continuing in the Word of God always costs something, 
but in my stumbling, imperfect manner I have desired to do the will of God 
whatever it might be.

It was not long after my conversion, though, that I was forced to begin 
considering the problem of the new versions. 

Thinking the new translations merely updated the sometimes antiquated 
language of the KJV, I went to a bookstore and asked for "a Bible that 
is easier to read." Though the lady behind the counter recommended that 
I stay with the KJV, something unusual for a commercial Christian bookstore 
today, she sold me a Today's English Version. I also obtained an 
Amplified Bible. As I studied these, though, neither seemed to be 
the uncorrupted Word of God, so I stayed with the old Authorized Bible. 

The first church I joined helped me a great deal, but the pastor believed 
the New American Standard Bible in many places contained readings preferred 
to the KJV. 

At that church I saw that some of the folk had The New Analytical 
Bible, and I purchased one of these study Bibles as well. The cross 
references, dictionary, and many of the helps were excellent, and I enjoyed 
using this Bible except for one serious matter. Scattered throughout the 
King James text were what the title page of the The New Analytical 
Bible claimed to be "the more correct renderings of the American 
Standard Version (1901)." Thereafter, as I studied the Bible I had to 
consider the changes and omissions brought into the text by these NASV 
readings. Were they to be preferred over the KJV readings? Were they, 
indeed, "more correct"?

One year after I was saved I attended Bible school at Tennessee Temple in 
Chattanooga, Tennessee, from which institution I graduated with highest 
honors in 1977. While there I took a course in Greek, and we studied from 
the United Bible Societies' Third Edition Greek New Testament. I was not 
told this Greek text was superior to the Received Text underlying the KJV, 
but this was assumed throughout the course. Why would the teacher use this 
particular Greek text if it is inferior? The Received Text was available 
from the Trinitarian Bible Society. The fact is that our teacher took the 
popular but inconsistent position that both the KJV and the NASV are 
excellent versions, and that, though the differences between the texts and 
versions make for interesting research, they are not truly significant.

Another of my teachers at Tennessee Temple used the NASV in the classroom. 
The point is that I had to consider the matter of texts and versions head 
on. I had to make a choice. What Bible would I base my Christian life and 
ministry upon? I found that I was no longer absolutely certain that every 
word of my Bible was perfect. I found myself wondering if this passage and 
that passage might be a transcriber's gloss.

Not long after graduation from Bible school my wife and I began missionary 
deputation, and in early February 1979, we left the States to travel to the 
land of Nepal. The next ten years we lived and served Christ in Asia. One 
of the projects we desired to accomplish in Nepal was to help produce a    
concordance in the Nepali language. We knew that one did not exist, but as 
we discussed this with Christian leaders in that land, we learned that the 
existing Nepali Bible needed to be revised or retranslated before a 
concordance could be produced. 

As we looked more closely at the Nepali Bible we understood why this was 
the consensus of opinion. The New Testament portion of the standard Nepali 
Bible at that time was based upon the English Revised Version of 1881. The 
Old Testament was based upon two or three English versions, including the 
Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible. Not only were there 
textual problems with this Bible, but it seemed that portions of it had not 
been carefully translated. There were all sorts of errors.

It was during my research into this Bible and discussions with the chairman 
of the Nepal Bible Society that I was forced to look seriously into the 
matter of texts and versions. Did the differences matter? If so, which text 
is the correct one? It was in those days during my first two years in Nepal 
that I came to a solid position regarding the superiority of the Received 
Text and of the English Authorized Version which is founded upon it. 

It was in those days that I began to understand about the myths surrounding 
this issues.

I certainly don't know all of the answers to the questions which surround 
the issues of Bible inspiration, transmission, and translation, but I have 
learned some quite shocking FACTS about the Bible version issue which were 
hidden to me for many years. I have learned that many of the commonly 
promoted ideas about Bible versions are but "moonshine." I call 
them myths. Don't ask me the motives of those evangelical and fundamental 
leaders who promote these myths. I don't know their motives, and surely 
they vary from individual to individual. I only know this: Many Bible-
believing Christian leaders are promoting ideas about our Holy Book what 
can only rightly be called myths.

I trust you will stay with me as we consider six of the popular myths about 
the King James Bible: Myth one, Erasmus was a humanist. Myth two, the 
Reformation editors lacked sufficient manuscript evidence. Myth three, 
there are no doctrinal differences between the texts and versions. Myth 
four, while inspiration was perfect, preservation was general. Myth five, 
true scholars today reject the Textus Receptus. Myth six, the issues are 
too complex for the average Christian to understand.

MYTH NUMBER ONE: 
ERASMUS WAS A HUMANIST

Invariably, if texts and versions are discussed, the name of Erasmus will 
enter into the conversation. And so, too, will the idea that "Erasmus was a 
humanist."

A popular evangelical leader and one time head of the International Council 
on Biblical Inerrancy, James Boice, writes of those who still persist in 
supporting the ancient and God-honored Textus Receptus. He seems to think 
one of the main problems with those who hold such old fashioned views today    
is their ignorance of the supposed fact that Erasmus was a humanist. Let us 
hear this, though, in his own words:

"However, in doing that [defending the Textus Receptus], they overlook the 
fact that Erasmus, who produced the Greek text on which the King James 
Bible is based, was actually a humanist" (Letter to Tom Hale, September 13, 
1985). 

It's amazing how often this charge is repeated by those who desire to 
belittle the text which literally covered the inhabited earth during the 
last 450 years. Stewart Custer, professor at the well-known fundamentalist 
university, Bob Jones, in The Truth About the King James Version 
Controversy, offers the same view of Erasmus: 

"The Textus Receptus began with an edition of the Greek New Testament put 
together by a Roman Catholic humanist, Desiderius Erasmus, in A.D. 1516" 
(page 10).

As is usually the case, this view of Erasmus is given without proof. It 
would appear that these matters in regard to Erasmus are settled historical 
facts, but in reality there is evidence that Erasmus was more than merely a 
"Roman Catholic humanist." 

As in most historical matters, there are areas of uncertainty; the evidence 
is imperfect and really insufficient; the time factor which divides us from 
the man is vast--450 years; the records which do exist can be interpreted 
from more than one angle, and are typically slated according to the bias of 
the historian or reviewer. 

Also, I want to make it clear that by no means am I ready to assign any 
degree of perfection to Erasmus, either spiritual or intellectual. I am not 
trying to excuse the man's problems. There were serious imperfections in 
the man by fundamental Christian standards--his refusal to practice 
biblical separation from the error he so clearly saw; his overly zealous 
affection for pagan scholarship; his refusal (like that of all the 
Protestants) to discard in toto all of Rome's errors, including the very 
concept of sacramentalism, papacy, and the priesthood, etc. 

Having said this, though, the evidence reveals that to label Erasmus merely 
as a Roman Catholic humanist and a careless, blundering textual editor is 
not the true picture.

I have made the effort to look into Erasmus's life and theology to acquaint 
myself sufficiently, I believe, for the task at hand. With considerable 
difficulty (since these studies were first written in South Asia without 
the benefit of proper theological library) I obtained two biographies of 
Erasmus's life--Erasmus of Christendom by Roland H. Bainton, and more 
importantly, the out-of-print classic Life and Letters of Erasmus by J.A. 
Froude, 1894. I have also used many other church historians and resources, 
and in light of the records available, I don't understand why evangelical 
men persist in casting Erasmus in such a totally negative spiritual light. 
These often are the same New-evangelicals who see nothing wrong with yoking 
together with modernists and Romanists today. One obvious motive for their 
attitude toward Erasmus would be an attempt to disparage his editorial work 
in reference to the Textus Receptus. 

The studies I have made into the life and beliefs of Erasmus have been 
edifying and challenging. Without doubt, he held the treasure of his faith 
in Christ in a clay vessel, but the record holds evidence that the man 
lived and died with Christ, that he was born of the Spirit. 
   
GOD CAN USE LESS THAN PERFECT MEN

The finality of such a judgment, obviously, is beyond the ability of any 
man to make, and it is not necessary to believe that Erasmus was a saved or 
spiritual man to believe that God used him as a chosen vessel in the matter 
of preserving the Word of God. Balaam, Samson, and Solomon were greatly 
used of God in spite of the fact that one of them was not even a part of 
the people of God, and the other two were disobedient. Two of these men 
were used in the process of the giving of inspired Scripture to the world. 
They were channels of divine revelation.

We could use the example here of another man who was used of God and even 
called the servant of God, but who was not described in Scripture as a 
saved man--Cyrus. See Isaiah 44:28--45:4. Cyrus was God's chosen instrument 
for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and in spite of the fact that he was a 
heathen king, God said of him in this passage, "He is my shepherd, and 
shall perform all my pleasure ... Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to 
Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden ... I will go before thee ... I will 
give thee ..." Note that Isaiah 45:4 makes it plain that Cyrus was not 
saved, for God said he would do all of this through Cyrus "though thou hast 
not known me." 

I am saying that even if it were true that Erasmus was not a saved man, and 
even if there are many things about Erasmus which were not right before 
God, this does not exempt him from having been a channel for divine 
preservation of Holy Scripture. I personally believe, though, that the 
record shows Erasmus was not a Cyrus or a Balaam.

Erasmus was within the Catholic Church, at least much of his life. But this 
does not mean Erasmus was blinded by Catholic heresies, certainly not to 
the extent that opponents of the Received Text would have us believe. And 
it is absolutely clear that Erasmus was not a humanist as it is defined in 
our day. A humanist by modern terms is one who has placed man in God's 
position and contends that man is the master of his own destiny. Today's 
humanists are atheistic evolutionists, and Erasmus absolutely does not fit 
into this category. If men such as those quoted above do not mean to say 
that Erasmus is a humanist after the modern definition, why don't they say 
so plainly? Certainly they know what most people think of today when they 
read that someone is a humanist.

The following facts will help balance the picture and I pray they will 
receive a wide hearing:

ERASMUS'S EARLY YEARS PROVIDED A BIBLE FOUNDATION

"In his youth, Erasmus was brought up among the Brethren of the Common Life 
who held the Bible in great reverence and awe ... Erasmus through life 
always had a similar reverence and respect for God's Word." <Lion's History 
of Christianity, p. 359; D.O. Fuller, A Position Paper on the Versions of 
the Bible.> We should note that Lion's History is biased against the Textus 
Receptus, yet even this volume admits that Erasmus was brought up among 
Bible-believing Christians and carried a reverence toward the Word of God 
throughout his life.   

We should add that such a reverence for the Scriptures was certainly not 
the common experience among Roman Catholics in those dark days just before 
and after the breaking out of the Reformation. Nor is it today, either, by 
the way! Erasmus's belief and spirit were closer to Scripture than to Rome.

Consider Erasmus's testimony toward the Bible in his own words:

"I would have the weakest woman read the Gospels and the Epistles of St. 
Paul ... I would have those words translated into all languages, so that 
not only Scots and Irishmen, but Turks and Saracens might read them. I long 
for the plowboy to sing them to himself as he follows the plow, the weaver 
to hum them to the tune of his shuttle, the traveler to beguile with them 
the dullness of his journey. ... Other studies we may regret having 
undertaken, but happy is the man upon whom death comes when he is engaged 
in these. These sacred words give you the very image of Christ speaking, 
healing, dying, rising again, and make Him so present, that were He before 
your very eyes you would not more truly see Him." <Norman Ward, Famine in 
the Land, p. 38.>

These, my friend, are not the convictions of the typical dupe of Rome in 
the sixteenth century. Note that the phrase about making the plowboy to 
sing the Scriptures originated with Erasmus--though it was popularized by 
William Tyndale.

ERASMUS SPOKE OUT PLAINLY AGAINST ROMAN ERRORS

"Europe was rocked from end to end by his books which exposed the ignorance 
of the monks, the superstitions of the priesthood, the bigotry and the 
childish and coarse religion of the day. ... The Pope offered to make him a 
cardinal. This he steadfastly refused, as he would not compromise his 
conscience." <Is the KJV Nearest to the Original Autographs?>

This matter of Erasmus being offered high positions in the Roman church and 
refusing for conscience' sake is confirmed by every source I have 
consulted. It is not possible to know for certain his motive in each 
instance, but it is a historical fact that Erasmus repeatedly refused 
positions which would have made him wealthy and given great worldly 
prestige. The record indicates that his primary motive in most instances 
was the driving desire to be free to study, to write, to translate the 
Scriptures. He often spoke of this as his compulsion in life. 

"Erasmus was of no mind to relinquish his liberty to travel wherever books, 
scholars, and printers were to be found." <Erasmus of Christendom, p. 103.>

"The consummate scholar Erasmus was the star of his age, who, though he 
might have lived opulently in France, Germany, or Italy, had chosen to 
finish his days among his English friends." <Ibid.>

"`I hear,' he wrote, `that the Christian King will make me a bishop in 
Sicily. I am glad he thinks of me, but I would not give up my freedom to 
study for the most splendid of bishoprics.'" <Ibid., p. 111.>
   
It is a historical fact that Erasmus was strong and public in his 
condemnation of Catholic heresies, and "these attacks were made at a time 
when they might well have cost him his life. They did, in fact, result in 
the Roman Catholic church branding him as an `impious heretic' and the Pope 
forbade Catholics to read his works." <Ward, p. 38.>

ERASMUS DEMONSTRATED HIS REJECTION OF ROMANISM BY HIS REJECTION OF THE 
LATIN VULGATE

Erasmus's own edition of the Latin New Testament was so opposed to the 
official Catholic Vulgate that "many thought Erasmus's Latin translation a 
presumptuous attack on the venerated Vulgate. Erasmus had also provided 
some annotations justifying his translation, and these annotations included 
sharp barbs aimed at the corrupt Catholic clergy." <D.A. Carson, The King 
James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism, p. 34.>

Historian Andrew Miller reminds us of the dangerous climate which existed 
in that day for anyone who would oppose the Roman Vulgate:

"Under the gracious, guiding hand of Him who sees the end from the 
beginning, Erasmus bent all his great mental powers, and all his laborious 
studies, to the preparation of a critical edition of the Greek Testament. 
This work appeared at Basel in 1516, one year before the Reformation, 
accompanied by a Latin translation, in which he corrected the errors of the 
Vulgate. This was daring work in those days. There was a great outcry from 
many quarters against this dangerous novelty. "His New Testament was 
attacked," says Robertson, `why should the language of the schismatic 
Greeks interfere with the sacred and traditional Latin? How could any 
improvement be made on the Vulgate translation?' To question the fidelity 
of the Vulgate, was a crime of the greatest magnitude in the eyes of the 
Roman Catholic church" <Andrew Miller, Miller's Church History (Bible Truth 
Publishers, 1980), p. 696.>

Again, we observe that this is not the work of the typical priest of Rome!

ERASMUS'S BIBLE COMMENTARY DEALT A SHARP BLOW TO ROME'S PERVERSIONS

It is crucial to understand the times in which Erasmus labored. His 
writings and the publication of his New Testament paved the way for the 
Reformation. Erasmus lit the fuse for the Reformation explosion. This is no 
mean feat. Though I am a Baptist and do not trace my heritage through the 
Protestant Reformation, I do praise God for the multitudes which have been 
saved because of the Reformation. I believe God used the Reformation to 
break the back of Rome's temporal power to prepare the way for the great 
missionary era of the last 400 years. I praise God for the political and 
social blessings I enjoy today because of the Reformation.

We are sorry that Erasmus did not more wholeheartedly join the Reformation 
and make an unequivocal departure from the Catholic church. Apparently he 
felt that the necessary changes could be made from within the existing 
traditional church structures. He was wrong in this, for sure, BUT HE DID 
SEE THE ERRORS AND THE PROBLEMS. He did see the wickedness. AND HE DID 
SPEAK OUT PLAINLY AND UNHESITATINGLY AGAINST THESE THINGS. It was Erasmus's    
boldness to identify Rome's vileness that led others, such as Luther, to 
take a stand.

Nothing more plainly evidences this than his commentary. At this point we 
will quote from Froude's Life and Letters of Erasmus:

"Erasmus had undertaken to give the book to the whole world to read for 
itself--the original Greek of the Epistles and Gospel, with a new Latin 
translation--to wake up the intelligence, to show that the words had a real 
sense, and were not mere sounds like the dronings of a barrel-organ.

"It was finished at last, text and translation printed, and the living 
facts of Christianity, the persons of Christ and the Apostles, their 
history, their lives, their teachings were revealed to an astonished world. 
For the first time the laity were able to see, side by side, the 
Christianity which converted the world, and the Christianity of the Church 
with a Borgia pope, cardinal princes, ecclesiastical courts, and a 
mythology of lies. The effect was to be a spiritual earthquake.

"Each gospel, each epistle had its preface; while notes were attached to 
special passages to point their force upon the established usages. ... 

"I shall read you some of these notes, and ask you to attend to them. 
Erasmus opens with a complaint of the neglect of Scripture, of a priesthood 
who thought more of offertory plates than of parchments, and more of gold 
than of books; of the degradation of spiritual life, and of the vain 
observances and scandalous practices of the orders specially called 
religious. ...

"Matthew 19:12 (on those who make themselves eunuchs)--`Men are threatened 
or tempted into vows of celibacy. They can have license to go with harlots, 
but they must not marry wives. They may keep concubines and remain priests. 
If they take wives they are thrown to the flames. Parents who design their 
children for a celibate priesthood should emasculate them in their infancy, 
instead of forcing them, reluctant or ignorant, into a furnace of 
licentiousness.'

"Matthew 23 (on the Scribes and Pharisees)--`...what shall we say of those 
who destroy the Gospel itself, make laws at their will, tyrannize over the 
laity, and measure right and wrong with rules constructed by 
themselves? ... prelates of evil, who bring disgrace and discredit on their 
worthier brethren?'

"Matthew 23:27 (on whited sepulchres)--`What would Jerome say could he see 
the Virgin's milk exhibited for money ... the miraculous oil; the portions 
of the true cross, enough if they were collected to freight a large ship? 
Here we have the hood of St. Francis, there Our Lady's petticoat, or St. 
Anne's comb, or St. Thomas of Canterbury's shoes ... and all through the 
avarice of priests and the hypocrisy of monks playing on the credulity of 
the people. Even bishops play their parts in these fantastic shows, and 
approve and dwell on them in their rescripts.'

"Matthew 24:23 (on Lo, here is Christ or there)--`I saw with my own eyes    
Pope Julius II, at Bologna, and afterwards at Rome, marching at the head of 
a triumphal procession as if he were Pompey or Csar. St. Peter subdued the 
world with faith, not with arms or soldiers or military engines.' ...

"1 Corinthians 14:19 (on unknown tongues)--`They chant nowadays in our 
churches in what is an unknown tongue and nothing else, while you will not 
hear a sermon once in six months telling people to amend their lives. ... A 
set of creatures who ought to be lamenting their sins fancy they can please 
God by gurgling in their throats.'

"1 Timothy 1:6 (on vain disputations)--`Theologians are never tired of 
discussing the modes of sin, whether it be a privation in the soul or a 
spot on the soul. Why is it not enough simply to hate sin? ... Hundreds of 
such questions are debated by distinguished theologians, and the objects of 
them are better unknown than known. It is all vanity. ... Over speculations 
like these theologians professing to teach Christianity have been 
squandering their lives.'

"1 Timothy 3:2 (on the husband of one wife)--`Other qualifications are laid 
down by St. Paul as required for a bishop's office, a long list of them. 
But not one at present is held essential, except this one of abstinence 
from marriage. Homicide, parricide, incest, piracy, sodomy, sacrilege, 
these can be got over, but marriage is fatal. There are priests now in vast 
numbers, enormous herds of them, seculars and regulars, and it is notorious 
that very few of them are chaste. The great proportion fall into lust and 
incest, and open profligacy. It would surely be better if those who cannot 
contain should be allowed lawful wives of their own, and so escape this 
foul and miserable pollution.'

"Such are extracts from the reflections upon the doctrine and discipline of 
the Catholic Church which were launched upon the world in the notes to the 
New Testament by Erasmus, some on the first publication, some added as 
edition followed edition. They were not thrown out as satires, or in 
controversial tracts of pamphlets. They were deliberate accusations 
attached to the sacred text, where the religion which was taught by Christ 
and the Apostles and the degenerate superstition which had taken its place 
could be contrasted side by side. Nothing was spared; ritual and ceremony, 
dogmatic theology, philosophy, and personal character were tried by what 
all were compelled verbally to acknowledge to be the standard whose awful 
countenance was now practically revealed for the first time for many 
centuries. Bishops, seculars, monks were dragged out to judgment, and hung 
as on a public gibbet, in the light of the pages of the most sacred of all 
books, published with the leave and approbation of the [Pope] himself. 

"Never was volume more passionately devoured. A hundred thousand copies 
were soon sold in France alone. The fire spread, as it spread behind 
Samson's foxes in the Philistines' corn. The clergy's skins were tender 
from long impunity. They shrieked from pulpit and platform, and made Europe 
ring with their clamour. ... 

"The words of the Bible have been so long familiar to us that we can hardly 
realize what the effect must have been when the Gospel was brought out 
fresh and visible before the astonished eyes of mankind" <J.A. Froude, Life    
and Letters of Erasmus (Charles Scribner's Sons, 1894), pp. 119-127.>

I don't know of any humanists today who have written anything like the 
words of Erasmus, because humanists today don't believe the Bible. Erasmus 
was definitely not a humanist in the modern definition of the term, and it 
is wrong for proponents of modern versions to identify him as such. It is 
also clear that Erasmus was not your ordinary Roman Catholic, to say the 
least. 

ERASMUS'S PROTESTANT SPIRIT IS SEEN IN ROME'S REACTION TO HIS WORK

We have already noted that Erasmus was branded as a heretic because of the 
publication of his Greek New Testament, his correction of the Catholic 
Latin Vulgate, and his translation of the Bible into Latin. The Pope forbad 
the people to read his works. The storm which swept around the man who 
produced the first printed Greek New Testament was terrific.

"Traditional Catholicism uttered a cry from the depths of its noisome pools 
(to use Erasmus's figure). Franciscans and Dominicans, priests and bishops, 
not daring to attack the educated and well-born, went among the ignorant 
populace, and endeavoured by their tales and clamours to stir up 
susceptible women and credulous men. `Here are horrible heresies,' they 
exclaimed, `here are frightful antichrists! If this book be tolerated it 
will be the death of the papacy!' `We must drive this man from the 
university,' said one. `We must turn him out of the church,' added another. 
`The public places re-echoed with their howlings,' said Erasmus. The 
firebrands tossed by their furious hands were raising fires in every 
quarter; and the flames kindled in a few obscure convents threatened to 
spread over the whole country. ...

"The priests saw the danger, and by a skillful maneuver, instead of finding 
fault with the Greek Testament, attacked the translation and the 
translator. `He has corrected the Vulgate,' they said, `and puts himself in 
the place of Saint Jerome. He sets aside a work authorized by the consent 
of ages and inspired by the Holy Ghost. What audacity!' and then, turning 
over the pages, they pointed out the most odious passages: `Look here! This 
book calls upon men to repent, instead of requiring them, as the Vulgate 
does, to do penance!' (Matt. 9:17). The priests thundered against him from 
their pulpits: `This man has committed the unpardonable sin,' they 
asserted, `for he maintains that there is nothing in common between the 
Holy Ghost and the monks--that they are logs rather than men!' ... `He's a 
heretic, an heresiarch, a forger! He's a goose. ... He's a very 
antichrist!'" <J.H. Merle D'Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the 
Sixteenth Century (New York: Hurst & Company, 1835), Vol. 5, pp. 153- 54.>

Edward Lee, a staunch Papist, organized a league of Englishmen to oppose 
Erasmus. D'Aubigne writes of the wide influence of this league: "In every 
place of public resort, at fairs and markets, at the dinner-table and in 
the council-chamber, in shops, and taverns, and houses of ill-fame, in 
churches and in the universities, in cottages and in palaces the league 
blattered against Erasmus and the Greek Testament. Carmelites, Dominicans, 
and Sophists, invoked heaven and conjured hell."
   
Historian Andrew Miller adds this testimony regarding the hatred expressed 
by traditional Romanists toward Erasmus: "This was daring work in those 
days. There was a great outcry from many quarters against this dangerous 
novelty. ... To question the fidelity of the Vulgate was a crime of the 
greatest magnitude in the eyes of the Roman Catholic church." 

ERASMUS REVEALED HIS LOVE FOR TRUTH IN HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD THE BIBLE

Historian J.H. Merle D'Aubigne tells us what Erasmus had in mind with his 
edition of the Greek New Testament:

"When Erasmus published this work, at the dawn, so to say, of modern times, 
he did not see all its scope. Had he foreseen it, he would perhaps have 
recoiled in alarm. He saw indeed that there was a great work to be done, 
but he believed that all good men would unite to do it with common accord. 
`A spiritual temple must be raised in desolated Christendom,' said he. `The 
mighty of this world will contribute towards it their marble, their ivory, 
and their gold; I who am poor and humble offer the foundation stone,' and 
he laid down before the world his edition of the Greek Testament. 

"Then glancing disdainfully at the traditions of men, he said: "It is not 
from human reservoirs, fetid with stagnant waters, that we should draw the 
doctrine of salvation; but from the pure and abundant streams that flow 
from the heart of God."

"And when some of his suspicious friends spoke to him of the difficulties 
of the times, he replied: `If the ship of the church is to be saved from 
being swallowed up by the tempest, there is only one anchor that can save 
it: it is the heavenly word, which, issuing from the bosom of the Father, 
lives, speaks, and works still in the gospel.'

"These noble sentiments served as an introduction to those blessed pages 
which were to reform England." <D'Aubigne, Vol. V, pp. 153-156.>

These, my friends, are not the sentiments of a mere "Roman Catholic 
humanist."

THE TERM "HUMANIST" HAS CHANGED MEANINGS SINCE THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

The term "humanist" meant something entirely different in the sixteenth 
century than it means today. In December 1984 I wrote to Andrew Brown, at 
that time the Editorial Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society, and 
asked about the charge of Erasmus being a humanist. Brown's reply was most 
enlightening:

"Erasmus was a thoroughgoing `Christian humanist' from his youth to his 
death. The use of the word `humanist' in the Renaissance and Reformation 
period does not in any way share the atheistic connotations which that word 
now has in popular usage. A `humanist' in that period was simply someone 
who was interested in classical literature, culture and education, as a 
means of attaining a higher standard of civilised life. Stephanus, Calvin 
and Beza were all humanists in this sense, and it is these `humanist' 
ideals which have largely shaped Western culture in the succeeding    
centuries, blended with the teachings of the Christian Gospel.

"Erasmus was both a Catholic and a Reformer at the same time. He criticised 
many of the worst abuses and corruptions of the Catholic church, but he 
thought that the church should be reformed from within and that it was 
wrong to separate from it. He was praised and criticised by Protestants and 
Catholics alike. Some of his writings are highly spiritual, even if there 
are occasional traces of unsound doctrine. His Enchiridon (Manual of a 
Christian Soldier) was so edifying that it was translated into English by 
William Tyndale, the translator of the first printed English New Testament. 
I am sending separately an extract from one of his last works, the 
`Treatise on Preparation for Death,' which I think will satisfy you 
concerning his spiritual outlook. A good biography of Erasmus is R. 
Bainton's Erasmus of Christendom." <Letter from Andrew Brown of the 
Trinitarian Bible Society, Jan. 7, 1985.>

ERASMUS'S DOCTRINAL ORTHODOXY IS SEEN IN HIS WRITINGS

Erasmus's own writings illustrate his doctrinal soundness and repulsion at 
Roman heresies. This was evidenced in his commentary to the Bible, but I 
want to quote from some of his other writings. We will begin with a quote 
from the last part of the work mentioned by Brown, Erasmus's Manual of the 
Christian Soldier. It is obvious from this that Erasmus did not follow 
Roman thought, but was sound at least regarding the major teachings of the 
Gospel. And it is certain that Erasmus was no humanist in any modern sense. 
As to the fundamental doctrines of the Word of God, Erasmus was orthodox.

Bainton informs us that Manual was "a resolute call to action in the 
Christian warfare" (p. 66). "As with   Kempis and the Brethren [with whom 
Erasmus spent his early years], the stress is laid upon the exemplification 
of the gentler virtues: humility, meekness, self-effacement, tenderness, 
compassion, yielding rather than asserting one's due, forgiveness, love of 
enemies, overcoming evil with good. ... The color of monastic habits, the 
wearing of girdles and sandals are all inconsequential ... The sacraments, 
we learn, are without value apart from the spirit."

Let us hear it in Erasmus's own words. Following are quotes from "Treatise 
on Preparation for Death": 

"Would you please Peter and Paul? Then emulate the faith of the one and the 
charity of the other. Thereby you will do better than if you make ten 
pilgrimages to Rome ... You honor a statue of Christ in wood or stone and 
adorned with colors. You would do better to honor the image of his mind 
which through the Holy Spirit is expressed in the gospels. Are you excited 
over the seamless robe and the napkin of Christ and yet doze over the 
oracles of his law? Far better that you should believe than that you should 
treasure at home a piece of the wood of the cross. Otherwise you are no 
better than Judas, who with his lips touched the divine mouth. The physical 
presence of Christ is useless for salvation ... In a word, let all your 
possessions, all your concern, all your care be directed toward the 
imitation of Christ, who was not born for himself, lived not to himself, 
died not to himself, but for our sakes ...
   
"We are assured of victory over death, victory over the flesh, victory over 
the world and Satan. Christ promises us remission of sins, fruits in this 
life a hundredfold, and thereafter life eternal. And for what reason? For 
the sake of our merit? No indeed, but through the grace of faith which is 
in Christ Jesus. We are the more secure because he is first our doctor. He 
first overcame the lapse of Adam, nailed our sins to the cross, sealed our 
redemption with his blood, which has been confirmed by the testimonies of 
the prophets, apostles, martyrs, and virgins and by the universal Church of 
the saints. He added the seal of the Spirit lest we should waver in our 
confidence ... What could we little worms do of ourselves? Christ is our 
justification. Christ is our victory. Christ is our hope and security. 
"Unto us a child is born." Unto US, born for us, given for us. He it is who 
teaches us, cures our diseases, casts out demons, for us suffers hunger and 
thirst, is afflicted, endures the agonies of death, sweats blood, for us is 
conquered, wounded, dead and resurrected, and sits at the right hand of God 
the Father ...

"As we approach death the sacraments are not to be despised, but of greater 
importance is faith and charity without which all else is vain. I believe 
there are many not absolved by the priest, not having taken the Eucharist, 
not having been anointed, not having received Christian burial who rest in 
peace, while many who have had all the rites of the Church and have been 
buried next to the altar have gone to hell. There is no point in putting on 
a cowl. Better to resolve to live a better life if you get well. I know a 
noble woman who gave a large sum to a priest to have masses said for her 
soul at Rome. Her money might better have been spent to obligate the priest 
never to go to Rome. ...

"Christ said, "Come unto me all ye that labour." Take refuge then in his 
cave in the rocks. Flee to his wounds and you will be safe. The way to 
enter paradise is the way of the penitent thief. Say simply, `Thy will be 
done. The world to me is crucified and I to the world.'" <Erasmus, 
"Treatise on Preparation for Death," quoted by Roland H. Bainton, Erasmus 
of Christendom (Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969), pp. 68, 69, 70, 269, 270.>

To the end of his life Erasmus fought with his pen against the excesses of 
Rome. From one of his earlier writings we have this typical sampling:

"Obedience is so taught as to hide that there is any obedience due to God. 
Kings are to obey the Pope. Priests are to obey their bishops. Monks are to 
obey their abbots. Oaths are exacted, that want of submission may be 
punished as perjury. It may happen, it often does happen, that an abbot is 
a fool or a drunkard. He issues an order to the brotherhood in the name of 
holy obedience. And what will such order be? An order to observe chastity? 
An order to be sober? An order to tell no lies? Not one of these things. It 
will be that a brother is not to learn Greek; he is not to seek to instruct 
himself. He may be a sot. He may go with prostitutes. He may be full of 
hatred and malice. He may never look inside the Scriptures. No matter. He 
has not broken any oath. He is an excellent member of the community. While 
if he disobeys such a command as this from an insolent superior there is 
stake or dungeon for him instantly." <Froude, p. 68.>

Of the work of Erasmus, the biographer Froude says:   

"A few words will not be out of place about the work which Erasmus was 
himself busy over, and of which the Adagia [from which the paragraph above 
was quoted] had been but a preliminary specimen. If we are to believe the 
account of his intellectual history which he began in his later writings, 
the Christian religion [speaking of the Christian faith of the New 
Testament] appeared to him to have been superseded by a system which 
differed only in name from the paganism of the old world. The saints had 
taken the place of the gods. Their biographies were full of lies and as 
childish and absurd as the old theogonies. The Gospels were out of sight. 
Instead of praying to Christ, the faithful were taught to pray to miracle-
working images and relics. The Virgin, multiplied into a thousand 
personalities--our Lady of Loretto, our Lady of Saragossa, our Lady of 
Walsingham, and as many more as there were shrines devoted to her--was at 
once Queen of Heaven and a local goddess. Pious pilgrimages and indulgences 
had taken the place of moral duty. The service of God was the repeating of 
masses by priests, who sold them for so much a dozen. In the exuberance of 
their power the clergy seemed to exult in showing contempt of God and man 
by the licentiousness of their lives and the insolence of their dominion. 
They ruled with their self-made laws over soul and body.

"Their pope might be an Alexander VI; their cardinals were princes, with 
revenues piled up out of accumulated benefices; their bishops were 
magnificent nobles; and one and all, from his Holiness at Rome to the 
lowest acolyte, were amenable to no justice save that of their own courts. 
This extraordinary system rested on the belief in the supernatural powers 
which they pretended to have received in the laying on of hands. As 
successors of the Apostles they held the keys of heaven and hell; their 
excommunications were registered by the Almighty; their absolutions could 
open the gates of Paradise. The spiritual food provided in school or parish 
church was some preposterous legend or childish superstition, varied with 
the unintelligible speculations of scholastic theology.

"An army of friars, released from residence by dispensation, were spread 
over Europe, taking the churches out of the hands of the secular priests, 
teaching what they pleased, and watching through the confessional the 
secret thoughts of man and woman. These friars thrust themselves into 
private families, working on the weakness of wife or daughter, dreaded and 
detested by husbands and fathers; and Erasmus, as well as the loudest of 
the Protestant reformers, declared that they abused the women's confidence 
for the vilest purposes. Complaint was useless. Resistance was heresy, and 
a charge of heresy, unless a friendly hand interposed, meant submission or 
death. Unhappy men, unconscious of offence, were visited by a bolt out of 
the blue in the shape of a summons before a Church court, where their 
accusers were their judges." <Froude, pp. 65,66.>

Upon Erasmus's first visit to Italy he witnessed a papal procession. 
Quoting History of the Popes by Ludwig Pastor and Lugduni Batavorum, the 
Leiden edition of the works of Erasmus, edited by Leclerc, 1703, Bainton 
gives this interesting description of the scene and Erasmus's response:

"Erasmus and his party, hearing that the city was actually in the 
possession of the pope, continued their journey and arrived in time to    
witness the papal triumph. The procession was led by horsemen and then 
infantry in glistening armour, followed by the papal standard bearers and 
the pope's ten white palfreys with golden bridles, then the foreign envoys, 
next forty of the clergy with lighted candles, the cardinals preceding the 
pope in a palaquin and clad in purple cape shot through with threads of 
gold and on his head a mitre sparkling with pearls and jewels. Patriarchs 
followed, archbishops and bishops, ecclesiastics, generals of the monastic 
orders, and at the end the papal guard. Erasmus viewed the spectacle magno 
cum gemitu, "with a mighty groan."

"`Was Pope Julius the successor of Jesus Christ,' he asked, `or of Julius 
Caesar?'

"A `mighty groan' is an apt description of Erasmus's reaction to Rome's 
vile errors throughout his life!"

So much more, of course, could be given from Erasmus's writings to 
illustrate the man's Bible faith and love for Christ, but we think one more 
quote will suffice to prove our thesis. The following was composed by 
Erasmus for the boys at a school established by his Bible-believing friend 
John Colet. Note Erasmus's love for Christ and his pure faith in the true 
Christ of the Bible--truly God, truly man, only Savior. And note, as well, 
that there is no hint here of that false Catholic mysticism which attempts 
to pass itself off as devotion to Christ. Give an ear to Erasmus's 
exhortation to these sixteenth century boys:

"Who in all history is like to Jesus, ineffably, inconceivably God of God, 
born before all times, eternal and fully equal to his eternal and loftiest 
parent? Does not his human birth easily overshadow that of all kings? By 
the will of the Father and the breath of the Spirit he was born of a 
Virgin, a man in time and still God, unsullied by our corruption. Who is 
richer than he who gives all things and is not diminished? Who more 
illustrious as the splendor of the glory of the Father, enlightening every 
man that comes into the world? Who more powerful than he to whom the Father 
has given power in heaven and on earth? Who more mighty by whose nod the 
universe was established? at whose nod the sea is calm, species changed, 
diseases flee, armed men fall on their faces, devils are expelled, rocks 
rended, the dead raised, sinners repent, and all things are made new? Who 
is more august whom angels adore and before whom devils tremble? Who more 
invincible than he who has conquered death and cast down Satan from heaven? 
Who more triumphant than he who has harrowed hell and brought souls to 
heaven where he sits at the right hand of God the Father? Who is more wise 
than he who founded and governs the universe in harmony? Whose authority is 
greater than his of whom the Father said, "This is my beloved Son. Hear ye 
him"? Who is more to be feared than he who can cast body and soul into 
hell? Who more fair than he whom to behold is perfect joy? Who is more 
ancient than he who has no beginning and will have no end? But perhaps boys 
may better think of him as a boy, lying in swaddling clothes in a manger, 
while angels sang, shepherds adored, the animals knew him, the star stood 
over where he lay, Herod trembled, Simeon embraced, Anna prophesied. O 
humble simplicity! O sublime humility! How can thoughts conceive or words 
suffice to express his greatness? Better to adore than to seek to explain. 
   
"What then shall we do, if John the Baptist said he was unworthy to unloose 
the latchet of his shoes? Strive, my dear boys, to sit at the feet of Jesus 
the teacher." <Bainton, p. 102.>

In these writings we see the heart and soul of a Protestant, not a true 
Roman Catholic; of a Bible-believing Christian, not a humanist. Those 
familiar with the writings and beliefs of the Protestant leaders such as 
Luther and Calvin will understand that all of these men continued to be 
somewhat intermingled in their thinking with Catholic theology in many 
areas. This is why the denominations they established were more akin in 
many ways to the one at Rome than to the one of the first century in 
Jerusalem. Luther (and Lutheranism after him), for example, retained infant 
baptism, believed in a real presence in the `Eucharist' (though not exactly 
in the Roman sense), established formal ties between church and state, 
retained much of the ritualism of Romanism, maintained the Catholic concept 
of "clergy" and "laity," and followed a type of church polity closer to 
Rome's than to the simple New Testament pattern of the pure independence of 
the local assembly. 

It is also true that many of the Protestant leaders did not, in the 
beginning, desire to depart from Catholicism, but only to purify it from 
within. Thus there were many in those days who, like Erasmus, were within 
the Catholic church and could very definitely be called Catholic, but were 
at the same time Protestant--protesters against Rome's errors--in belief 
and heart. We must remember that was the very beginning of the sixteenth 
century, the mere dawn of the Reformation.

I am saying that the historical facts and the writings of Erasmus reveal 
that he was a Bible believer and a reformer even though he long remained 
within the confines of Catholicism. At the very worse, he had rejected the 
chief errors of Romanism. In fact, as we shall see later in this study, 
Westcott and Hort, leaders in the revision work of the late 1800s in 
England, were much closer in their affection toward Rome and sacramentalism 
than was Erasmus of Rotterdam! 

One illustration, for now, will suffice to demonstrate this. While Erasmus 
fought against Roman sacredotalism (pertaining to the priesthood, 
especially as relates to the concept of a priesthood possessing special 
divine authority and power) and sacramentalism, Westcott and Hort loved 
these things and desired to bring the Church of England closer to Rome: 
"Hort writes to Westcott, October 17, 1865, [only five years before they 
started the English Revised Version]: `I have been persuaded for many years 
that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common in their 
causes and their results.' And again, in correspondence with Westcott, Hort 
said: `But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants unlearn 
the crazy horror of the idea of priesthood.' Hort writes to Dr. Lightfoot, 
October 26, 1867: `But you know I am a staunch sacerdotalist.'" <Life of 
Westcott, Westcott, Vol. II, page 50, 51, 86.>

Some protest against the use of the above correspondence to demonstrate 
Westcott and Hort's beliefs. It is true that some of the letters within 
these volumes were written when the men were young, during their formative 
years. But the ones I have quoted were written in the last half of the    
nineteenth century, when the men were matured in their thinking. In fact, 
as already noted, these letters were written just a few years before they 
began working on the translation of the English Revised Version. The first 
resolution of intent to produce the ERV was published in early 1870 by the 
Southern Convocation of the Church of England. Westcott was born in 1825 
and Hort in 1828; therefore, both men were about forty years of age when 
they wrote the letters I have quoted.

ERASMUS DIED AMONG PROTESTANT FRIENDS, POSSIBLY OUTSIDE OF THE CATHOLIC 
CHURCH

We read that "in 1535, he [Erasmus] again returned to Basel and died there 
the following year IN THE MIDST OF HIS PROTESTANT FRIENDS, without 
relations of any sort, so far as known, with the Roman Catholic Church." 
<Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended p. 194, quoting T.A. 
Dorey, Erasmus (London: Kegan Paul, 1970); Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom; 
W. Schwarz, Principles and Problems of Translation (Cambridge: University 
Press, 1955), pp. 92-166; Preserved Smith, Erasmus, (New York: Harper, 
1923).>

It must also be mentioned that Erasmus, almost to the end, desired to see 
Rome and England (after the Anglican church broke from Catholicism) 
reconciled, and was willing to offer his services toward that goal. This is 
a sad commentary, but is a fact, and is but the fruit of his lifelong 
refusal to understand or practice biblical separation. It can be said, 
though, to his credit, that a year before his death Erasmus turned down a 
strong offer to become a Roman cardinal. "In another letter he says on the 
same subject: `Some of my friends at Rome wish to provide the income 
required for the red hat, and promote me whether I will or no. They mean it 
seriously. The Pope, six of the cardinals, and the Portuguese Ambassador 
are moving for me. I have written to say that I will not by provided for by 
benefice or pension.'" <Froude, p. 420.>

THE GREEK EDITORS WHO REVISED ERASMUS'S TEXT WERE UNQUESTIONABLY 
PROTESTANT, BIBLE-BELIEVING MEN

It is important to note that the men who followed Erasmus in the work of 
producing editions of the Greek New Testament and from whose editions most 
of the translations of the Protestant Reformation were made, were strong 
Bible-believing men. It must be kept in the mind that it was through the 
work of these men, of whom there can be no doubt that they were separated, 
persecuted Protestants, that the Textus Receptus was perfected. It is upon 
their Greek texts, and not directly upon that of Erasmus that the KJV was 
based.

Theodore Beza, for example, "was one of the leading advisors to the 
Huguenots [separatist New Testament Christians] in France. He participated 
in their conferences and defended the purity of the Reformed faith. He 
produced new versions of the Greek and Latin New Testament, a source for 
the Geneva and King James Bibles ... Under his leadership Geneva became the 
centre of Reformed Protestantism." <Lion's History of Christianity, p. 
382.> 
   
It could be mentioned here that the Geneva Bible contained notes which were 
unhesitatingly anti-Catholic.

Of Robert Stephanus, whose third edition of the Greek New Testament is 
commonly regarded as the Textus Receptus in Britain, we read: "In 1523 he 
published a Latin New Testament, and two times he published the Hebrew 
Bible entire. But the most important were his four editions of the Greek 
New Testament in 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551 respectively. These activities 
aroused the opposition of the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that in 
1550 he was compelled to leave Paris and settle in Geneva, where he became 
a Protestant, embracing the Reformed faith." <The New Schaff-Herzog 
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Funk & Wagnalls), "Stephan"; quoted by 
Edward Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 203.>

It can be said, and rightly so, that the men who produced the Greek texts 
and Bible translations of the sixteenth century were imperfect men. It 
CANNOT be said that they were men of weak faith in the Scriptures or men 
who were apostate in their beliefs, as CAN be said of those who have 
produced the vast majority of Greek texts of modern times and most of the 
translations from these corrupted texts.

My friends, let us not accept this evangelical myth which surrounds Erasmus 
and other sixteenth and seventeenth century Protestant editors and 
translators. As we have seen, there is more to the picture than is commonly 
presented in the writings of those who for some strange reason feel called 
to downgrade the text and versions in which the Word of God was preserved 
for centuries and to slander anyone who persists in reverencing and 
defending that Text.

In conclusion we must urge upon our reader the conviction that it is not 
Erasmus or any other man who is the focus of our faith. We do not believe 
the Received Text is the pure Word of God because of any perfection we find 
in Tyndale, or Erasmus, or Beza, or Stephanus, or King James I, or the 
Authorized Version translators, or David Otis Fuller, or any other man or 
group of men. Far from it! Our faith is in Almighty God who gave a perfect 
Bible and Who has promised to keep it.

In this regard we quote from Edward F. Hills, a Harvard educated scholar 
who defended the Received Text and the King James Version in spite of the 
derision this brought from the intellectual crowd. The one great thing that 
made Hills different from most liberally educated scholars is this: he 
believed the Bible. He believed God's testimony regarding the inspiration 
and preservation of Holy Scripture. Praise be to God for such a scholar in 
this age of unbelief!

"In the editing of his Greek New Testament text, especially, Erasmus was 
guided by the common faith in the current text. And back of this common 
faith was the controlling providence of God. ...

"The God who brought the New Testament text safely through the ancient and 
medieval manuscript period did not fumble when it came time to transfer 
this text to the modern printed page. This is the conviction which guides 
the believing Bible student. ..."   

To that we say Amen and amen!
