Examination of Modern
                            New Testament
                            Text Criticism
                          Theory and Methods
                              version 2.0

                     By:  Jeffrey A. Young Ph.D.
                    For:  Pastor Kenneth K. Miller


This document may be reproduced in its entirety free of charge for
non-commercial private use only.  This document may not be otherwise
reproduced in whole or in part without the express written consent
of the authors.

Introduction......................................................... 2
I.  We Know from God's Word that Modern the Conclusions are False.... 3
  A.  God Establishes His Word....................................... 3
  B.  The Scriptures Have Not Been Lost.............................. 3
  C.  No One May Add to or Subtract from God's Word.................. 4
  D.  Doctrinal Purity is not Popular in the Last Times.............. 4
  E.  Recent Text Critics Have Modified the Apostasy................. 5
II.  We Know from Their Reasoning that the Modern Theory is False.... 5
  A.  The Major Premise of Westcott and Hort is False................ 5
    (1)  Westcott and Hort's Favorite Manuscripts Bear the Marks of
         Those Corrupted by Gnostic Adoptionists in the 2nd Century.. 6
      (a) These Manuscripts Show Deviations
          Along Gnostic Doctrinal Lines.............................. 7
      (b) These Manuscripts Show Wild Discordance Within the Set..... 9
      (c) These Manuscripts Show Wild Discordance With
          Manuscripts of Similar Age................................. 10
      (d) These Manuscripts Show Wild
          Discordance with the Traditional Text...................... 10
    (2)  The Evidence Westcott and Hort Offer is Extremely Weak...... 10
    (3)  Data Speaking Against
         the Major Premise is Abundant and Powerful.................. 12
      (a)  Data from Church History Shows the Major Premise is False. 13
      (b)  Data that Substantiates the Traditional Text
           Shows that the Major Premise is False..................... 13
        (i)  The Translations Witness Against the Major Premise...... 13
        (ii)  The Church Fathers Witness Against the Major Premise... 14
        (iii)  The Lectionaries Witness Against the Major Premise.... 14
        (iv)  The Later Copies Witness Against the Major Premise..... 15
      (c)  Recent Papyri Finds Prove the Major Premise False......... 16
    (4)  The Beliefs of Westcott and Hort Favor Gnosticism........... 17
  B.  Consequent Assumptions of Westcott and Hort
      are False Because the Major Premise is False................... 19
  C.  The Text Criticism Method of Westcott and Hort is False
      Because it is Based on a False Premise and False Implications.. 22
  D.  The Application of the Text Criticism Method is Disastrous..... 22
  E.  Modern Text Critics have Never Answered the Points
      Raised in this Essay Although the Weighty Arguments Were Cited
      within 2 Years of the Publication of the Text Critical Method.. 24
References........................................................... 25


     There is a cartoon by Larson that shows a physicist addressing a room
full of farmers at a dairy convention.  The physicist is saying "assume a
spherical cow."  This situation bears a striking resemblance to the present
controversy over which Greek text should be used for New Testament translation
into English (text criticism).  The physicist represents Westcott and Hort,
two text critics who published a revolutionary text of the New Testament in
1881.  Their methods of criticism are wholeheartedly accepted by most liberal
text critics today, and their Greek text has been largely used for virtually
all modern English translations (including NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB,
are the Christians who need to buy Bibles to study God's Word.
     As with any other theory harbored by hopelessly impractical academics,
they over-simplify the problem.  Forming conclusions under their unrealistic
assumptions is much easier than really considering the pertinent evidence.
They make too much of their own authority, and forbid laymen to weigh the
conclusions and evidence and form their own opinion.  As usual, the academics
do everything they can to complicate matters by multiplication of terminology,
confusion of fact with inference, and confusing repetition of an assertion for
supplying proof.
     Their conclusions are much more destructive than most eccentric
scholarly theories.  The motivation for the conclusions in both the case of
Westcott & Hort, and the modern liberal text critics is apostasy (though the
nature of the apostasy is different in the two cases).  They reject what God's
word says about it's origin and preservation, so they comb the text evidence
to find a footing for their rejection of what it teaches.  In this way they
use the data at their disposal to discredit God's word.  Their false beliefs
have a very real impact on the words that are included in the modern
translations.  All modern English Translations use a Greek text that changes
or casts doubt on about one word in twenty of New Testament Scripture.  These
changes reflect false doctrines held by early (2nd century) devil-worshipping
heretics.  If you want to avoid the modern butchers, you must use the King
James Version.  No other modern translation, to my knowledge, completely
avoids the modern error.  The assumptions of the modern Greek New Testament
Text Critics do not represent an approximation to the actual evidence, but a
negation of the actual evidence.  The dark secret they protect is that the
scant evidence they offer does not support their claims.
     The purpose of this report is to show briefly, but accurately that the
conclusions of the moderns contradict scripture (part I), and that the basis
of their conclusions is blind hope in the face of contrary evidence (part II).

I.  We Know from God's Word that the Modern Conclusions are False.

A.  God Establishes His Word.

            God's Word                |      Westcott & Hort Conclusion
Through faith in the                  |  Only scholars properly equipped
substitutionary suffering and death   |  with training and a thorough
of Christ the Holy Ghost enters       |  knowledge of Greek and the ancient
into the heart (Galatians 3:2, Jn 16:14);   |  manuscripts are qualified to sit in
and He is the Spirit of truth, who    |  judgment over God's Word. [2, p.
teaches men to recognize His Word     |  285]
which He spoke through the Prophets   |
and Apostles (1 Pet 1:10-12) as His   |  A trained critic may through his
Word.                                 |  superior knowledge know better than
                                      |  all witness that have gone before.
It is a mistake to think that we      |  [1, p. 421], [2, p. 13 cmpr preface
sit in judgment over God's Word and   |  p. viii], [2, p. 17]  He knows
may decide which Greek text we wish   |  better than the ancient copyists.
to accept for our own use (2 Pet      |  [1, p. 420]
1:16).  It is instead the duty of     |
each Christian to recognize the       |  Without the Holy Ghost or any
Word of God, to which we owe our      |  evidence what-ever the trained
allegiance and most devout            |  critic can improve God's Word. [1,
attention.                            |  p. 426], [1, p. 428], [1, p. 428,
                                      |  429, 430 where word 'corruption' is
God's Word has its own authority      |  used] [2, p. 32]
(Jn 10:27-29) and it is foolhardy     |
to think we need to add credibility   |
to His Word with testimonials (Ps     |
50:12, Jn 5:41), but rather it is     |
God that delivers us (Ps 50:15),      |
and preserves scripture (Jn 10:35,    |
2 Pet 1:19, Mt 5:17-18) by His        |
almighty power (Jn 5:37-47, Ro        |
4:21, Is 46:10-11).  He is the        |
author and finisher of our faith,     |
and uses His own methods to keep us   |
(2 Pet 2:9)                           |

B.  The Scriptures Have Not Been Lost.

            God's Word                |      Westcott & Hort Conclusion
All scripture is God's word. (2 Tim   |  They assume that between 250 A.D.
3:16).  It can never fail (John       |  and 350 A.D. there was a revision
10:35, Mt 5:18, 24:35, Mk 13:31, Lk   |  of the Greek text which produced
21:33), but is true. (Jn 17:17),      |  the traditional text. [1, p. 428],
                                      |  [2, p. 92 cmpr p. 94 p. 133]
It does not contain fables (2 Pet     |
1:16), but scripture is more sure     |  They say this revision caused the
than if God were to speak directly    |  original text to be lost. [1, p.
to us from heaven (2 Pet 1:19).       |  426] [2, preface p. xiv]
God's Word has never been secret      |  They say this was a conspiracy
but always openly declared (Isaiah       |  which has successfully suppressed
45:18,19).  If it is hid, then it     |  the original up to and including
is hid to them that are lost and      |  the present time. [1, p. 430] [2,
blinded through unbelief (2  Corinthians      |  p. 150-151]
4:3-4).                               |
C.  No one May Add to or Subtract from God's Word.

            God's Word                |      Westcott & Hort Conclusion
It is a sin to add to or subtract     |  All text evidence (including the
from God's Word (Deuteronomy 12:32, Revelation     |  traditional text) but for a few
22:18-19).                            |  ancient manuscripts may safely be
                                      |  ignored. [1, p. 429-430], [2, p.
We are commanded not to listen to     |  285].
those false prophets who do (Jeremiah.     |
23:16, 1 John 4:1).                   |  Because these disagree with each
                                      |  other the true text is unknown. [2,
Every Christian can recognize them    |  p. 150-151] [2, p. 287]
(Mt 7:15-20, Isaiah 8:20, 1 Jn 2:21f,   |
1 Jn 2:27).                           |  We are left with subjective
                                      |  considerations to determine what
The true God is nothing like false    |  we may accept as the true text for
gods, and it is a sin to mix in the   |  the present time. [1, p. 430]  But
teachings of false gods (Ro 1:16-     |  these subjective considerations
28), or to seek out familiar          |  must be those of the most eminent
spirits (Isaiah 8:19-20, Leviticus 19:31,      |  scholars.  They may decide for
Leviticus 20:6, Deuteronomy 18:11).                |  themselves and you must accept
                                      |  their results [1, p.420, 426, 428-
To reject Gods word is to call Him    |  430], [2, p. 24].  These scholars
a liar (1 John 5:10).                 |  never agree however, witnessing to
                                      |  the shortcomings of their personal
                                      |  fetishes.  [2, preface p. xi][2,
                                      |  preface p. xiv] [2, p. 17], [2, p.
                                      |  32] [2, p. 65] [2, p. 66].  It only
                                      |  remains to doubt that God's Word is
                                      |  knowable.  [2, preface p. xiv]
                                      |  People should be grateful to them
                                      |  because of the comparative purity
                                      |  of their texts to the traditional
                                      |  text which went before [1, p. 430]
                                      |  [1, p. 452], and never mind that as
                                      |  a consequence you must abandon hope
                                      |  of finding the 'right' text for the
                                      |  present time. [2, p. 285]

D.  Doctrinal Purity is not Popular in the Last Times.

            God's Word                |      Westcott & Hort Conclusion
It was foretold repeatedly and        |  In these latter times with our
urgently that shortly after Paul      |  superior knowledge and exact
died grievous wolves would arise      |  science we have advanced far beyond
within the outward fellowship of      |  the primitive Christians.  In these
Christendom (Acts 20:29-31).          |  last times we have a superior
                                      |  belief that has eliminated the
That men would reject the truth in    |  fables formerly believed and
favor of fables (2 Tim 4:4).          |  carried in the traditional text.
                                      |  [1, p. 430, 452]
That they would secretly bring in     |
damnable heresies (2 Pet 2:1).        |
That many would follow them (2 Pet    |
2:1, Luke 17:27).                     |

            God's Word                |      Westcott & Hort Conclusion
At the end of the world apostasy      |  They say miracles are not real but
would be very popular (Luke 17:26-    |  apparent. [8, p. 32]  They say
27).  This apostasy would deny        |  certainty of the text relies on the
miracles and be based on the          |  subjective considerations of the
passions of the false prophets who    |  scholar. [1, p. 430]  They deny the
are willingly ignorant that the       |  almighty power of God's Word since
word of God is almighty. They don't   |  they say it has been lost.  They
believe in the second coming of       |  deny the person of Satan [8, p.
Christ, or fear judgment (2 Pet       |  13], Hell [8, p. 17], and the
3:1-10)                               |  sudden coming of Christ for
                                      |  judgment [8, p. 17E]

E.  Recent Text Critics Have Modified the Apostasy.

     Modern text critics accept the method of Westcott and Hort whole-
heartedly (see also II D, E). [1, p. 419-420, 430, 452]  They change the set
of discordant manuscripts worthy of consideration (still eliminating the
traditional text).  They highly prize the most venerated manuscript invoked by
Westcott & Hort. [1, p. 430]  They witness against the erroneous nature of
Westcott and Hort's theory by contradicting their conclusions.  (See section
II D)  They advance an even greater apostasy (Synoptic Theory) that eclipses
the first.  They say that since Matthew, Mark and Luke have a common view yet
have different details, this is not evidence of independent witnesses, but
Matthew, Mark and Luke are an artful fabrication of two original books that
are totally unknown at the present time.  One of these they designate as
Marcan (Mark-like).  The other as Q. [1,p.447 and chapter on Synoptic Problem]

II.  We Know from Their Reasoning that the Modern Theory is False.

A.  The Major Premise of Westcott and Hort is False.

     It is impossible to make sense of Westcott and Hort's text theory unless
you hold firmly in mind that their most primitive assumption is that the whole
church prior to 350 A.D. participated in a conspiracy to suppress the original
text.  Based on this hidden premise, Westcott and Hort derived principles of
text criticism, and then used these principles to prove their major premise,
thus closing the loop forming a circle of reasoning that is spread out over
150 pages of presentation.  It is wrong to say that they didn't offer any
evidence.  It is perfectly accurate to say that the evidence they do offer
does not establish the thesis they must prove.  Their thesis is a historical
thesis which contradicts all previous historical conclusions, and yet they
didn't offer a single historical observation from the period under
consideration to prove it.
     This leads us to a paradox.  Why, if the major premise of their theory
is historical, did they not avail themselves of a single historical fact in
it's defense?  Two conclusions are possible.  First, it could be that Westcott
and Hort were wholly ignorant of the history under consideration.  Aside from
being an absurdity, this hypothesis is much too kind to them, as will be seen
shortly.  Second, it could be that they knew of it; and were willing to
believe their theory correct regardless of how strongly the historical
evidence stood against them.  This second conclusion is supported in the
biography of Westcott by the fact that He wrote Hort saying "On many things
when I am in doubt you seem to have clear views, and you generally appear, I
think, to have a more solid foundation than I can boast of in a kind of
historic optimism." [12, p. 252]
     The most important historical fact in the period 150-350 A.D. relative
to text criticism is that heretics mutilated some copies of scripture.  This
mutilation was performed by Adoptionists late in the second century.
Adoptionism is a form of gnosticism (the most widespread heresy of the
period).  This mutilation followed doctrinal lines.  Those who performed it
claimed to have corrected the text to the apostolic original, and produced "a
large number" [4, p. 237] of wildly discordant copies (since later Gnostic
copyists didn't hesitate to further mutilate the text they received from their
masters).  They treated the standard of faith with contempt.  Their purpose in
changing the words of the manuscript was to escape the judgment of the
scriptures very much the same way Jehovah's Witnesses prepared their own
translation to fit their own doctrine.  Therefore these copies showed wild
variation compared to manuscripts of similar date and with the traditional
text. [4, p. 235-238]
     Conspicuously absent from Westcott and Hort's principles of text
criticism is any warning to avoid these mutilated copies.  This glaring
omission is frequently repeated in the authoritative critique of Westcott and
Hort's text critical theory [3].  The reason they fail to warn against
depraved texts is not far to seek.  The few manuscripts they do not ignore
have all been rejected as depraved texts because they bear all the marks of
corrupted texts [3, p. 249].  Instead of listing the characteristics of the
copies mutilated by the Gnostics, Westcott and Hort warn that it was the
practice of orthodox church copyists to mutilate the text by blending
discordant manuscripts to form the traditional text.
     Where history records a mutilation of some copies of the sacred text by
Gnostic heretics Westcott and Hort are silent.  Where history records that the
true sacred text survived this assault and is preserved in the traditional
text, Westcott and Hort counter that the whole church participated in a
conspiracy to fabricate a blended (and therefore corrupted) text.
     Westcott and Hort must not have believed the traditional Christian
church to be genuine, but a sham.  This thesis is supported by the biographies
of Westcott and Hort.  When J. F. D. Maurice was accused of false doctrine,
Westcott commented that Orthodox Christians are like a new Islam persecuting a
revival of the true Christians.  He also said that it was the practice of his
party not to be open about their views. [11, p. 229]  Westcott said he thought
most people in his day didn't know what classical theology is.  [11, p. 261]
He said that there is a "forgotten truth" that Mariolotry bears witness to.
[11, p. 251].  Westcott wrote to Hort and distinguished between the "old
Medieval Church" and "the Church" and confessed that he didn't know how they
were related historically. [11, p. 285].  Hort responded that the true church
has been greatly injured since the Athanasian creed (400 A.D.), and dead since
the reformation, and that he believes protestantism to be only parenthetical
and temporary. [16, p. 31-33]  A year later, and twenty years before
publication of the revised Greek text he wrote to Hort "More and more we seem
to need to go to the beginning of things.  Those who hold the truth seem to
hold it irrationally.  I can dimly imagine a new way for establishing old
beliefs." [11, p. 293-294]
     Westcott and Hort must have believed that what historians recorded as a
defense against heretics was in reality a suppression of the true church. They
believed that what the historians recorded as heretically corrupted texts were
closer to the true autographs.
     Westcott and Hort did not publicly admit that they thought gnosticism to
be genuine Christianity.  The private beliefs of Westcott and Hort are not
primarily at issue here, but rather the evidence that speaks for and against
their major premise.  The error of their major premise is demonstrated in that
(1)  Westcott and Hort's favored texts bear all the marks of Gnostic
corruptions compared to the traditional text, (2)  the evidence they offer is
extremely weak, (3)  the data speaking against their major premise is abundant
and powerful.  Although unnecessary to the refutation of their major premise,
the works of Westcott and Hort, and their biographers have clearly shown that
(4) the beliefs of Westcott and Hort were biased in favor of Gnosticism.

(1)  Westcott and Hort's Favored Manuscripts Bear the Marks of Those
     Corrupted by Gnostic Adoptionists in the 2nd Century.

     There were two manuscripts Westcott and Hort favored most.  The first is
CODEX B (Vaticanus).  The second is ALEPH (Sinaiticus).  They called these
manuscripts "almost wholly neutral".  They deemed the readings of these
"strongly preferred," and said they had the "ring of genuineness".  It is
manifest that these manuscripts bear all the marks of Gnostic corruptions.
This is evidenced in that they show (a) deviations along Gnostic doctrinal
lines, (b) wild discordance with each other (c) wild discordance with
manuscripts of similar age and (d) wild discordance with the traditional text.
Since ALEPH and B exhibit the marks of Gnostic corruption, it is clear that
these two manuscripts are depraved.

(a)  These Manuscripts (ALEPH and B)
     Show Deviations Along Gnostic Doctrinal Lines.

     The changes found in the modern English Bibles are due in large measure
to the modification of the Greek text to agree with ALEPH and B.  This may be
proved by considering some sample section of scripture such as Mark 2:1-12.
In these twelve verses Westcott and Hort adopt 23 variations.  A variation is
a deviation from the traditional text.  A variation may be any one of the
standard phenomena of text criticism including omitted words, added words,
substituted words, transposed words, variation of case, tense, spelling or
phrase.  Of these 23 variations, in 18 ALEPH and B agree, in 2 ALEPH is
unsupported by B, and in 2 B is unsupported by ALEPH [3, p. 16].  The reader
may correlate doctrinal changes himself against the following summary of
Gnostic doctrine [7, p. 74-79].
     Gnosticism may be summed up into three false doctrines to which all
others must give way.  These three false doctrines are (I) Spiritism:  the
belief that the supreme God is unknowable and a hierarchical array of
intermediary spirits exist the lowest of which is Jehovah (the creator and God
of the Jews), (II) Anti-Materialism:  the belief that sin resides in matter,
and (III) Illuminism:  the belief that salvation comes by secret knowledge
supplied by intermediate spirits.  In essence this system is devil worship
because it says the lowest spirit is the creator (Jehovah of the Jews).  This
not only places all devils and Satan above the true God, but also ascribes to
the true God the multiplication of evil by creating the (evil) material world,
and robs Jesus of the prophetic office giving it to devils and Satan.
     Some examples of how these Gnostic corruptions have crept into the
modern versions may be found by comparing the NIV to the KJV.  The former uses
the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, while the latter follows the traditional
Greek text.  A comparative study of the first 12 chapters of Luke with a more
detailed description of Gnostic false doctrine gives the following evidence of
Gnostic corruption.
     Those Gnostic false doctrines related to Spiritism are:  The Jewish
Scriptures are looked on as an inferior revelation, and several extra-biblical
accounts of creation are used.  The trinity is denied.  By substituting a
pantheon of devils for the true God, the importance of the true God is
minimized.  Meanwhile the status of the devils is elevated saying that they
dwell in light.  The miracles worked by God are diminished because they want
to say that the false wonders produced by devils are better.  Redemption is
the release of the spirit from the prison house of it's (evil) body. [7, p.
     Spiritism is reflected in the first 12 chapters of Luke (NIV) by those
passages that diminish the wickedness of the devils, those that diminish the
authority of Christ over the devils, those that diminish the authority of the
Father over devils, and those that diminish the opposition of the true God to
evil.  The wickedness of devils and the authority of Christ over devils are
diminished in Luke 4:8 where the NIV deletes the words in CAPS from "And Jesus
answered AND SAID UNTO HIM, GET THEE BEHIND ME, SATAN for it is written, Thou
shalt worship the Lord."  The authority of the Father over devils is
diminished in Luke 11:2 when the Lord's Prayer is butchered denying the fact
that the father dwells in heaven and His will is done there.  The NIV deletes
the words in CAPS "OUR Father WHICH ART IN HEAVEN hallowed be thy name, thy
kingdom come THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH".  This is also shown
by turning the kingdom of God in the KJV into just the kingdom in Luke 12:31.
The opposition of the true God to evil is diminished when the words "DELIVER
US FROM EVIL" are cut out of the Lord's Prayer in the NIV Luke 11:4.
     Those Gnostic false doctrines related to Anti-Materialism are:  The fall
is equated with the creation of matter.  The resurrection of the dead is
denied.  Two different denials of Christ's Divine or human nature.  (A) Some
say his body was not real, but a phantom.  (B) Others say that he was a mere
man prior to his baptism, and after Gethsemane (Adoptionism, which amounts to
an accusation of demon possession).  Both of these deny Christ's real humanity
before baptism and during His passion on the cross.
Anti-Materialism is reflected in the first 12 chapters of Luke (NIV) by
those passages that reflect Adoptionism.  Adoptionism says that Jesus was an
ordinary mere man before His baptism, and that He was possessed by the pure
spirit Christ who descended on Him at His baptism.  The adoptionist influence
is revealed by denial of the virgin birth in Luke 2:33 where the KJV has
"Joseph" but the NIV has "father" and in Luke 2:43 where the KJV has "Joseph
and his mother" and the NIV has "parents".  In Luke 9:35 the KJV has God
calling Jesus His "beloved Son" but the NIV has "Son, whom I have chosen".
The latter is consistent with Adoptionism, while the former is not.
     Jesus words in KJV Luke 9:55-56 make Adoptionism impossible "Ye know not
what manner of spirit ye are of.  For the Son of man is not come to destroy
men's lives, but to save them."  The problem this poses to Adoptionism is that
Jesus ascribes salvation particularly to His human nature when He says it is
the "Son_of_man" who is come to save.  This denies the Adoptionist belief that
the Christ is merely a possessing spirit.  It also directly denies the Gnostic
notion that the mission of the redeemer is to bring about death to free the
good spirit from it's evil body.  Instead Jesus says here that His mission is
to save life.  This wholesale rejection of adoptionistic gnosticism is why
these words of Jesus were cut out in the ancient corrupt manuscripts, and not
included in the NIV.
     Those Gnostic false doctrines related to Illuminism are:  Man is saved
by knowledge not faith, so there is no need for God's Law or repentance.
Knowledge is given by the redeemer (implying death).  Knowledge is given by
any of the intermediary spirits who are above scripture.  There are three
types of men:  those who cannot be saved, those who may or may not be saved,
and those who can be sure of their salvation.  The knowledge is only given
secretly to the elite. This implies infiltration and pretended fellowship with
the uninitiated (Orthodox Christians).  The secret revelation tends toward
notions of hidden ciphers in scripture.
      Illuminism is reflected in the first 12 chapters of Luke (NIV) by those
passages that deny the importance of the Word of God and remove the rebuke of
hypocrisy.  (See also those passages above that diminish God's importance and
exalt devils).  In Luke 4:4 the words in CAPS are excised from the NIV "It is
written that man shall not live by bread alone BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD".  In
Luke 6 Jesus said that someone who hears His sayings and does them is like one
who built upon rock.  Clearly the rock is God's Word.  Where the KJV
recognizes that the cause of the house standing is that it "was founded upon a
rock"  the NIV has that it was "well-built".  The hallmark of Illuminism is a
secret revelation reserved only for the elite.  They condescend to unite with
the Orthodox Christians even though they don't agree with them in doctrine.
They think that they are giving us time to be enlightened by their initiation.
In other words they enshrine hypocrisy.  The NIV, based on the Gnostic corrupt
Greek of Westcott and Hort, excises the accusation of hypocrite in several
places, one of which is in the twelve chapters under consideration Luke 11:44.
     A recent work by Taylor [6] makes it very easy for anyone who cannot
read Greek to compare the more significant variations adopted based on
variation of the Greek text.  Counting the deviations (listed in [6]) which
resulted from a difference in the Greek text in the book of Matthew 55 of 94
deviations favored Gnostic doctrine, while none of the 94 deviations went
against Gnostic doctrine.  Twenty-four of them favored spiritism, 16 favored
anti-materialism and 15 favored illuminism.  Counting the deviations (listed
in [6]) which resulted from a difference in the Greek text in the book of Luke
62 of 83 deviations favored Gnostic doctrine, while none of the 83 deviations
went against Gnostic doctrine.  Thirty-two of these favored spiritism, 14
favored anti-materialism and 16 favored illuminism.  The large number of text
modifications that don't appear to support Gnostic beliefs may be due to
"corrective" modification of a later Gnostic hand.  A more likely hypothesis
that warrants further investigation is that the modifications were made so
that the text would conform to some hidden cipher system.  At least one author
has used the numerical symmetry of the Westcott and Hort text as an argument
for it's authenticity and inspiration [10].  God has never promised numerical
symmetry, and He expressly denies any hidden meaning [Isaiah 45:18-19, 2  Corinthians
4:3-4]. It is significant that in both Matthew and Luke the largest number of
deviations concern Spiritism (about half that favor Gnosticism).  Can you say
that it doesn't matter which version is used in light of this?  God says in
scripture "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". Exodus 20:3.
     The disagreement of the NIV compared to the KJV is often the result of a
different underlying Greek text.  When this is the case, the English reader
may compare the difference in content to Gnostic false doctrine and judge for
himself whether the KJV or the NIV favors Gnosticism.  When this exercise is
performed it is found that about one out of two changes in the NIV based on
different Greek favors Gnosticism, and no changes contradict Gnosticism.  The
changes in the Greek text used for NIV translation are largely based on the
Greek text of Westcott and Hort.  Since Westcott and Hort put an extremely
heavy emphasis on two manuscripts heretofore rejected as depraved texts, one
may conclude that these manuscripts are the result of the Gnostic manuscript
corruption reported in history.

(b)  These Manuscripts (ALEPH and B)
     Show Wild Discordance Within the Set.

     Recall that the two favored manuscripts of Westcott and Hort are known
as ALEPH and B.  Since these two manuscripts originated at nearly the same
time, and are believed by all to have originated from a common ancestor, a
high degree of disagreement between the two manuscripts is evidence that they
are Gnostic corruptions.  This may be concluded because those who report the
Gnostic corruptions in history tell us that

     "If anyone will take the trouble to collect their several copies
     and compare them, he will discover frequent divergencies; for
     example, Ascelepiades's copies do not agree with Theodotus's.  A
     large number are obtainable, thanks to the emulous energy with
     which disciples copied the 'emendations' or rather perversions of
     the text by their respective masters....it is possible to collate
     the ones which his disciples made first with those that have
     undergone further manipulation, and to find endless
     discrepancies." [4, p. 237]

     In order to establish a basis of comparison, two other manuscripts about
the same age as ALEPH will be considered that don't show the marks of Gnostic
doctrinal corruption.
     ALEPH and B are so closely related that one of their advocates claimed
the same copyist worked on part of the two manuscripts [3, p. 318].  The two
manuscripts are believed to be about 50 to 100 years apart in age.  The time
span is very short and the kinship is admitted on all sides.  Westcott and
Hort put them in the same class and call them highly preferred.  But in this
short period of time, these two manuscripts show wild variation given the
short time between the two.  In the four Gospels alone B has 589 readings
peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words, but ALEPH has 1460 such readings
affecting 2640 words.  In perhaps 100 short years the number of peculiar
readings grew by 871 [3, p. 318].
     Compare this to two more reliable manuscripts A and C.  About 400 years
passed from the time the gospels were penned to the time that A and C were
copied.  Yet in St. Luke's Gospel A has only 90 peculiar readings affecting
131 words and C has 87 peculiar readings affecting 127 words [3, p. 249].
     Thus the rate of corruption of either A or C compared to the traditional
text is less than one ninth of the rate of corruption of ALEPH compared to B.
The warning from history of wild variation existing within the set of
manuscripts tainted with Gnostic corruptions allows the determination to be
made conclusively that ALEPH and B have been depraved through Gnostic
corruptions.  The high rate of corruption of ALEPH compared to B supports this

(c) These Manuscripts (ALEPH and B)
    Show Wild Discordance With Manuscripts of Similar Age.

     History reports of those who produced manuscripts tainted with Gnostic
corruptions that "they did not receive the Scriptures in such a condition from
their first teachers, and ... cannot produce any originals to justify their
copies." [3, p. 249]
     Consider the ten verses of Luke 8:35-44 collated with the Gnostic
corruptions ALEPH and B, compared with reliable manuscripts A and C.  Recall
that a variation is a deviation from the traditional text.  A variation may be
any one of the standard phenomena of text criticism including omitted words,
added words, substituted words, transposed words, variation of case, tense,
spelling or phrase.  ALEPH has 27 variations compared to the traditional text,
and B has 25.  ALEPH has 8 readings peculiar to itself and B has 6, yet show 4
common variants.  The variants of B are supported by A in only one place, and
by C in only one place.  The variants of ALEPH are supported by A in only one
place, and by C in only one place. [3, p. 17]
     This illustrates that ALEPH and B are discordant with manuscripts of
similar date.  Of the 27 variations that ALEPH displays in this passage only
one is supported by A, and only one is supported by C.  Of the 25 variations
displayed by B, only one is supported by A and only one by C.  Since
discordance with manuscripts of similar date is one of the characteristics of
the Gnostic corruptions, this discordance supports the thesis that ALEPH and B
are Gnostic corruptions.

(d) These Manuscripts (ALEPH and B)
    Show Wild Discordance with the Traditional Text.

     The wild discordance of ALEPH and B with the traditional text is a
further witness to the fact that they are Gnostic corruptions of the genuine
autographs.  Westcott and Hort concede in their textual theory that the
traditional text is every bit as ancient as the more ancient of ALEPH and B
(B).  They further acknowledge that it was the consensus of all Church fathers
living at the time that the traditional text was identical with the genuine
autographs.  [2, p. 92]
     From church history we know that one of the characteristics of the
Gnostic corrupt manuscripts was their wild discordance with the traditional
text.  In the gospels alone ALEPH and B are shown to be wildly discordant:  B
shows 7578 variations and ALEPH shows 8972 variations. [3, p. 289]  This is
surprisingly large since the Gospels contain about 61,400 words, these two
manuscripts exhibit a variation of about one word in ten. [3, p. 264]

(2)  The Evidence Westcott and Hort Offer is Extremely Weak.

     Westcott and Hort admit that it was the unanimous judgment of the whole
Christian church of the fourth century that the traditional text is preferred
to their coveted codex B (which was copied during the fourth century).  In
view of this admitted fact, one would expect them to supply weighty evidence
indeed.  At this point the reader would expect to be buried in academic
references, bombarded with arcane facts impossible to sort out.  But,
surprise!  The entire theory comes down to one simple claim summarized in the
little word "conflation".  That's right, "con fla tion n. : BLEND FUSION; esp:
a composite reading or text.(Webster's Dictionary)"  According to Westcott and
Hort, you can tell that all ancient Christian witnesses are wrong, and the
Christian faith is a sham, because traditional Greek text appears, on the face
of it, to them, to be a blended text.
     What Westcott and Hort deny is that anyone can weigh this claim by
looking at the evidence they offer.  I lay this challenge to you:  If you can
decipher the explanation in this section you will have elevated yourself to
the favored class of the elite scholars.  For only elite scholars, according
to Westcott and Hort, alone are able to understand such matters.
     What, pray tell, do they say the traditional text was blended from?
They're not really sure.  They say that there were two kinds of text welded
together, and they have given names to the kinds, but they can't actually
produce the two texts; these must have been thrown away long ago by those who
were claiming to rid the world of corrupt manuscripts.  How convenient.  This
makes it cumbersome to prove the theory wrong, for a theory must be more than
mush before it can be demonstrated wrong.  The duty of proof lies with the
revisers of all previous Christian history (Westcott and Hort).  If the source
texts cannot be produced for examination, then how do we know they really
existed?  While they don't claim to have exact copies of the postulated text
types, they have reasonable approximations.  Reasonable enough, one must hope,
to at least articulate the claim.  Of course, it is impossible for Westcott
and Hort to tell just how close an approximation these are to the originals
since they assume the originals are lost.
     They call the two kinds of text "neutral" (meaning that which doesn't
differ very much from B and ALEPH) and "western" (meaning that which doesn't
differ very much from a codex known as D (or Bezae)).  The reader by now is
familiar with the character of codices ALEPH and B which are Gnostic
corruptions, but what is the pedigree of D?  It is not a manuscript from the
third or fourth century, but it is from the sixth century.  It is not a
Gnostic corruption, however, but a text corrupted for some other reason,
because the changes do not correlate with Gnostic false doctrines.  We know it
is corrupted because it differs wildly from the traditional text.  By counting
text phenomena, it differs from the traditional text of Luke in 4753 places
out of only 19,941 words.  This amounts to about one modification for every
four words.  A credible hypothesis is that the text is a re-translation of a
Latin manuscript back into Greek.  There is nothing novel about producing
rabidly depraved manuscripts; these have been available to those interested in
such things since the second century.  What is new, is to say that the
traditional text was fabricated from two manuscripts previously counted as
     So according to their view, the traditional Greek text, which existed in
the fourth century, is a mixture of two source texts.  One of these sources is
like Codex B (which was copied in the fourth century) and the other is like
Codex D (a sixth century manuscript).  How could a fourth century document be
a blend of a fourth century document and a sixth century document?  This is
where the concept of conflation is used.  They claim that the evidence of
looking at D, ALEPH and B is so compelling that the traditional text is a
harmonization of these divergent texts that there must have been two source
texts that were blended to form the traditional text.
     What evidence do they offer that was so compelling to them?  Out of the
entire New Testament, after searching for 30 years for evidence that would
justify their irrational fondness for codex B they have found but eight verses
of the traditional text that appear to them to have been fused.  They say that
since ALEPH and B agree in omitting the same part of these eight verses, and D
omits a different part, therefore the traditional text must have been a
harmonization of the two which fused the material found in each.  To someone
who wishes to believe the unanimous witness of the church fathers living in
the fourth century, this sounds remarkably like independent omission by one
Gnostic copyist of codex B in the fourth century who was hostile to the faith,
and by a second copyist (or latin-to-greek translator) 200 years later.  In
Luke and Mark, B omits 1 of every 21 words, ALEPH omits 1 of every 19 words,
and D omits 1 of every 13 words.  A reliable copyist of the same era (Codex A)
omits only one in 91 words.  What would be unexpected about three unreliable
witnesses omitting different words in 8 verses of Luke and Mark?  For their
major premise to even merit consideration they must show that fusion is
possible and more credible than independent deletion.
     Let the reader judge for himself.  Of the eight verses they mention,
four of them fail entirely to exhibit the desired phenomena because D contains
a paraphrase of the traditional text.  This takes care of examples in Mark
6:33, Mark 8:26, Luke 9:10, and Luke 11:54.  Since D is a paraphrase of the
traditional text, these four verses witness that the traditional text must
have come first.  Can anyone conceive of a harmonizing copyist inventing
details that lie behind a paraphrase?  The fifth case they offer is Luke
12:18, but here ALEPH and B diverge, and so this case must be discarded as
contradictory to the theory.  Finally we are left but three verses in the
entire New Testament displaying the desired phenomena.  Consider these.  The
following passages have words in CAPS that ALEPH and B delete, and words
preceded by an underscore (e.g. _because) which D deletes.

     Mark 9:38 "And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one
          casting out demons in thy name, AND HE FOLLOWETH NOT US: AND
          WE FORBAD HIM,_because_he_followeth_not_us."
     Mark 9:49 "For_every_one_shall_be_salted_with_fire,_AND EVERY
     Luke 24:53 "And were continually in the temple, PRAISING_AND
          _blessing_God. Amen."

Can the reader see anything in these omissions that favors the hypothesis
of Westcott and Hort?  How would you show from this evidence that a fusion
occurred in all traditional texts of the fourth century rather than
independent deletions in the fourth and the sixth centuries in two isolated
copies?  This is a puzzle that Westcott and Hort don't even attempt to solve.
Rather they say it is obvious to all sufficiently trained scholars.  Is the
emperor clothed?  Are cows round?  It is my contention, any observer can judge
these questions.
     Now consider all the facts they have set forth to substantiate their
major premise.  They have one manuscript which they can prove to be as old as
the traditional text of the fourth century, and a second manuscript from the
sixth century.  These disagree with each other and with the traditional text,
wildly.  They can produce 8 verses in the New Testament where ALEPH, B, and D
exhibit omission but not the same words.  In four of these, D paraphrases the
traditional text, witnessing that the traditional text is older.  Only three
can be produced that have ALEPH and B omitting one thing and D something else.
Even if it is irrationally believed that the omissions in these three cases
witness to fusion rather than deletion, there is the difficulty that the four
paraphrases of D contradict this belief.  This argument is assembled only from
evidence they cite to substantiate their claim, and already they are out-
numbered with witnesses against them.  I won't bore the reader with the
abundant further evidence that witnesses to the antiquity of the traditional
text reading of these three verses, but it was cited against the theory 2
years after it was stated in 1883, [3, p. 260-261, notes [3], [4], [8]]
     It is no wonder that the modern text critics who adopt this theory don't
shrink from positing synoptic theory.  Seeing how popular Westcott and Hort
have become for having postulated an irrational theory, that amounts to
nothing but bald apostasy, without having even to supply or defend the
slightest evidence imaginable, the modern text critics have progressed to
complete freedom from evidence.
     The nature of text evidence in attempting to substantiate a conspiracy
theory of such far-reaching implications is extremely weak. They are charging
all Christians of the fourth century with the murder of the true autographs.
What does the fact that different words are deleted in various old manuscripts
have to do with the charge of conspiracy against all ancient Christendom?  A
fused text is only the merest shadow of a conspiratorial event of this
magnitude.  It is demanded of a prosecuting attorney when bringing a charge
against a single man in this day that he show motive, means, and opportunity
before the case is given a hearing.  It is reasonable in this case, when
countless millions of Christians of the fourth century are being charged with
murder of the true autographs, that we extend them the same courtesy.
     How does their case stack up to this test?  The motive is never stated,
and so we are left to wonder why so many would agree in such a fusion.  The
means, or mechanism by which fusion could be instituted and maintained also is
unknown.  Opportunity is also totally lacking.  Where were the conspiring
meetings held?  Who presided?  How did they get the unwilling to succumb?  All
of these elements of their case are lacking.  All they endeavor to show is
that the traditional text may not be the true autographs.  This is analogous
to the prosecution laboring heavily in a murder trial to show that the victim
is dead, and not being able to find the body.

(3)  Data Speaking Against the Major Premise is Abundant and Powerful.

     It is assumed that the reader will thank me for providing only the
briefest outline of the data standing against the major premise of Westcott
and Hort.  This is justified in that their case is so weak, and the evidence
against it so abundant, that the interested reader may occupy the rest of his
life with nothing more than studying the data which Westcott and Hort ignored.
The purpose of this section is to introduce the reader to the vast body of
data that Westcott and Hort, and most modern liberal text critics are
willingly ignorant of (In addition to God's Word 2 Pet 3:5).

(a)  Data from Church History Shows the Major Premise is False.

     Of primary importance in refuting their major premise is the data from
church history that stands against any motive, means or opportunity ever being
established for such a conspiracy theory.  Consider the main features of the
church as it existed in ancient Rome before 350 A.D. [7]  In this period there
was no hierarchy, but only local congregations led by pastors.  There was no
central control which could be diverted.  Prior to 311, every 20 years or so
there was a violent persecution of Christians in which they would be fed to
the lions or tortured to death.  One of the chief controversies of the age was
caused because one bishop, after an ebb in the wave of persecution, refused to
readmit those to the church who had refused martyrdom.  These are the people
who are said to have willingly ignored their Lord's word and accepted some
unknown church authority!  In about 311, Constantine the Great ended the
persecutions by legalizing Christianity.  At this point, there were nearly as
many Christians in the Roman Empire as there were pagans.  How could such a
large, diverse populace be made to succumb to butchering their Word of Life
when they suffered torture and death rather than verbally recant their status
as Christian?  How could this be done without a single recorded protest in
history?  How could someone elevate himself in popularity to such an authority
status that everyone would accept his judgment without leaving a single
historical fact that attests to his authority?

(b)  Data that Substantiates the Traditional Text
     Shows that the Major Premise is False.

     Of secondary importance in refuting their major premise is the data that
substantiates the authenticity of the traditional text.  This is of secondary
importance because it is impossible for them to show the motive, means or
opportunity for their major premise from an historical standpoint.
     A Christian should know that the text has been preserved according to
the promise of God in scripture (Jn 10:35, 2 Peter 1:19, Mt 5:17-18, Jn 5:37-
47, Romans 4:21, Is 46:10-11).  Indeed the scoffing apostasy of Westcott and Hort
does nothing but confirm the trustworthiness of God's Word because He foretold
it. [2 Pet 3:1-10]  Since Westcott and Hort don't claim to have God's Word
preserved, they don't have an alternative for a Christian.
     The old man, the scoffing modern scholars, and any unbeliever, is acting
contrary to evidence and reason if he fails to recognize the traditional text
as the one which the Holy Ghost breathed and preserved.  This is evidenced by
(i) the translations, (ii) the witness of the fathers, (iii) the witness of
the lectionaries, and (iv) the witness of the later copies

(i)  The Translations Witness Against the Major Premise.

     One problem with the theory that a conspiracy suppressed the true Greek
text in the fourth century (or even the third century) is that the Bible was
translated into other languages at a very early date.  This evidence is very
abundant, over 15,000 copies exist of various translations. [9, p. 40].  Since
Westcott and Hort reject the unanimous testimony of the Christian Church in
the fourth century, they would also explain away the manuscripts of
translations that were made after 400 A.D. into Gothic, Georgian, Ethiopic and
Nubian.  They would, no doubt, say these were dupes of the conspiracy.  They
would dismiss the translations into Syrian:  Palestinian (5th century),
Philoxenian (508), and Harkleian (616).  They would dismiss the Egyptian
translations: Bohairic (4th Century) and Middle Egyptian (5th century).  They
would likewise dismiss all copies of Jerome's translation into Latin that was
completed in 384, demanding more ancient evidence.  But there is an
inconsistency in this.  What is to compel me to accept the witness of two
heretical doctors of divinity from the nineteenth century above the witness of
fourth and fifth century translators?  Their criterion of ancient is better
means that I must accept the witness of those nearer the event than those
later.  The burden of proof laid upon Westcott, Hort, and their modern allies
grows to a crushing mountain when it is considered that every New Testament
translator between 300 and 1881 must be shown to be a traitor or a dupe to a
conspiracy to suppress the true text.
     Even if we irrationally accept their demand for a witness before the
fourth century, they fare no better.  The Peshitta (a translation into Syrian)
was produced early in the second century.  It is possible that this
translation was in the hands of Saint John.  There are 350 copies extant of
this translation, and they support the traditional text.  The old Latin
translation that was in use when Jerome prepared the Vulgate was translated
much earlier than 300 A.D. because 50 copies are still extant dated between
300 and 400 A.D.  This translation is also a witness, prior to the fourth
century, that testifies to the authenticity of the traditional text.

(ii)  The Church Fathers Witness Against the Major Premise.

     Even if all copies of the Greek manuscripts and translations were lost
to us, the Bible is such a heavily quoted book in history that it is possible
to reconstruct nearly the entire New Testament from quotes scattered about in
the early church fathers.  Sir David Dalrymple established that the entire New
Testament could be assembled from quotes of the fathers of the second and
third century except 11 verses. [9, p. 51]  The mass of this evidence is
demonstrated in the index of New Testament citations of the Church Fathers of
Antiquity by the Dean John Burgon who is also the author of the authoritative
critique of Westcott and Hort's theory [3].  This index consists of 16 thick
volumes and contains 86,489 quotations. [9, p. 52]
     How this data may be used to certify the authenticity of the traditional
text is illustrated by Dr. Burgon as follows.  He considers 15 verses (Mk
10:17-31) copied by Clement of Alexandria in 183 A.D.  Alexandria was a hotbed
of Gnosticism during this period, and Clement was not completely free of
Gnostic taint.  Because of this, the witness of Clement against Westcott and
Hort is more credible because it shows that no matter how sympathetic one is
when choosing witnesses, the traditional text is supported.
     When compared to the traditional text Clement differs in 38% of it.  But
when Clement is compared to Westcott and Hort, he differs by 44%.  The reader
may well ask how such a corrupt copy could possibly be of use to us at the
present time.  Since Clement's text evidently is more corrupt than Westcott
and Hort, how can his testimony be of any use?  Let Clement be considered an
impartial witness who lived before any of this controversy arose, and let him
weigh in on the proposed changes of Westcott and Hort.  Of the 15 changes
proposed by Westcott and Hort, 12 of them are rejected by Clement who
testifies to the authenticity of the traditional text. [3, p. 327-331]  This
testimony is 150 years older than the favored manuscripts of Westcott and
Hort, and it comes from the area that is most likely to agree with the
doctrinal bias of Westcott and Hort.
     The authenticity of the traditional text is verified by the fact that
the ancient fathers quoted it.  If it were welded together in the fourth
century, how could someone substantiate it's wording 150 years earlier?  To
believe such a thing is to turn history on it's head.

(iii)  The Lectionaries Witness Against the Major Premise.

     There are at least 2143 lectionaries extant.  Lectionaries are portions
of the New Testament books arranged according to a fixed order for reading in
the churches at worship.  This system developed at a very early date in the
church (probably the first century), because the practice of assembling the
scriptures in this way was taken over from Judaism.  This being the case, the
text of the lectionaries represents a very reliable transmission medium since
the lectionaries saw such limited use and were publicly read.  The
lectionaries support the reading of the traditional text over against the
proposed changes of Westcott and Hort.

(iv)  The Later Copies Witness Against the Major Premise.

     There are about 3000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that were
copied by handwriting.  Most of these copies are dated after 800 A.D.  The
class of manuscripts dated after 800 A.D. is known as the "later copies" in
this section.  It is the contention of Westcott and Hort that since there was
a conspiracy that fabricated the traditional text, all later copies may be
collapsed into a single fabricated copy of the fourth century which may be
ignored.  But since they did not show that there was such a conspiracy, the
witness of the church in the fourth century is in reality a consensus of
independent witnesses to the authenticity of the traditional text.  Westcott
and Hort don't believe there were any errors due to transmission between the
fourth century and the later copies that couldn't be corrected through a
majority consensus of the manuscripts.  Since they did not prove the fourth
century text to be a fabrication, a procedure that corrects the errors in the
later copies establishes the authentic text.
     The rate that errors formed in transmission by handwriting may be
observed by considering how many times Codices A and C mentioned above differ
from the traditional text in the book of Luke.  This gives about one word
being affected in 90 over the course of 400 years.  Estimate the New Testament
to contain approximately 140,000 words.  There are 2000 copies that existed
less than 1200 years from the autographs.  If the transmission rate was
basically the same until the middle ages, and no corrections were made, it may
be concluded that the average error rates of the later copies is about 1 word
in 30.
     Even if all early copies were destroyed, the original text could be
recovered from the later copies through error correction.  The error
correction procedure is to take an odd number of manuscripts and form the
corrected text by adopting the words supported by the majority.  This recipe
of correction is hardly novel, it has intuitive appeal as a reasonable
correction algorithm where independent, equally credible witnesses are
     One modern text critic objects that this method is irrational because
the later copies are "too homogeneous" for this model [12, p. 207].  This
difficulty may not exist, because this author does not quantify his claim;  to
a liberal text critic, one error in thirty may be considered homogeneous.
Even if the error rate is lower than one word in thirty, it is easily
explainable in that a majority vote process may have been employed by many
independent witnesses in the course of document transmission, and thus the
errors corrected through independent observation.  It is significant that no
mechanism has ever been put forward by these critics to account for how an
archetype would be universally enforced in the monasteries of the middle ages.
This is a large difficulty because hand-writing had to be the mechanism of
transmitting and enforcing the archetype.  Logistically this is a very large
task.  How could it be executed without evidence is a puzzling mystery.
     If it is pessimistically assumed that no copyists in the middle ages
employed error correction, it would still only take 7 independent manuscripts
with an error rate of 1 word in 30 to establish the New Testament text with
only 1 error.  If 21 manuscripts are used then the probability of a single
error in the new testament is less than 1 part in one hundred thousand.
Before the final edition of Erasmus Greek text of the New Testament, he had
considered at least 17 Greek manuscripts, and 10 Latin manuscripts on a first-
hand basis.  Many more manuscripts were consulted by those who reviewed or
commented on his publication, including codex B whose variants are mentioned
in the margin of the second and 5th editions and accurately characterized as
corrupt.  In addition to this Erasmus compared two other contemporary Greek
editions:  the Aldine, and the Complutensian.  With this large, diverse body
of manuscripts consulted, it is more likely that the original autographs were
re-assembled by Erasmus than to think that they were not. [13, p. 35-42]
     The later copies are sometimes wrongly thought to be the strongest
evidence against the theories of Westcott and Hort.  Those who argue from the
later copies are accused of trusting only the later copies instead of the
ancient.  All the opponents of Westcott and Hort attempt to do with this
argument, however, is show that it is unreasonable to think that there are any
uncorrected errors in the New Testament caused by transmission through
writing.  The later copies show that Westcott and Hort's theory is wrong
because there was no conspiracy in the fourth century.  It is unreasonable in
the face of historical evidence to believe that the ancient Christian church
accepted a fabrication, and so the later copies establish the original
     It is usually claimed that the text type of the later copies isn't
represented very strongly in the earlier centuries by remaining manuscripts.
This difficulty has not been proved to exist because the "text type"
categories have never been precisely defined.  (See section II B, and D.)
Even if this difficulty exists, it is no serious problem to the traditional
view, because the more popular and reliable a manuscript is, the more likely
it is that ancient copies would have worn out and no longer be available.  One
author who has the courage to mention this argument in a scholarly paper [12,
p. 206] raised the related difficulty that if this applies to the copies
before 800 A.D. why does it not apply to those after 800 A.D.  The reason is
simple.  Movable type was invented in the early 1400's, and manuscripts didn't
see the same use that they did prior to it's invention.
     When movable type was invented the mechanism for text preservation was
changed.  Without movable type a reliable manuscript had to be handled at
least once, and probably many times for each copy that was produced.  With
movable type, copies could be produced by the thousand with little more
manuscript handling than it previously took to produce one copy.  It is no
wonder that the Gutenburg Bible is the first book of this period known to be
printed in movable type.  By 1500, there were more than 1,000 printer shops in
Europe.  Erasmus, who assembled a Greek edition for printing, lamented the
idleness and carelessness of copyists in 1522 "such are the customs of the
clergy, who care more about plates than pages and are interested more in money
than manuscripts." [13, p. 41]
     In the later copies we have a snapshot of the reliable manuscripts that
were employed to preserve the text through transmission by handwriting.  As
you go back in time before the invention of movable type, the more reliable
manuscripts gradually taper away until none are available before 800.  This
same phenomenon is observed in other works that were preserved by transmission
through handwriting.  The following list gives the title and date of the
earliest extant copy of 14 works whose earliest extant copy is later than 800:
Caesar (900 A.D.), Plato Tetralogies (900 A.D.), Tacitus Annals (1100 A.D.),
Tacitus minor works (1000 A.D.), Pliny the Younger History (850 A.D.),
Thucydides History (900 A.D.), Suetonius De Vita Caesarum (950 A.D.),
Herodotus History (900 A.D.), Sophocles (1000 A.D.), Catullus (1550 A.D.),
Euripides (1100 A.D.), Demosthenes (1100 A.D.), Aristotle (1100 A.D.),
Aristophanes (900 A.D.). [9, p. 42]  The Bible has much support before 800
A.D. by manuscripts that were not used regularly by professional scribes, but
this evidence is inferior to that of the later copies because the breadth of
evidence more than compensates for the time span from the original {see also
section II B. point (2) comment (c)}  If this is not reasonable to you, then
can you tell where so many homogeneous copies would have appeared from if not
from an abundance of similar copies that existed in previous centuries but
were worn out?

(c)  Recent Papyri Finds Prove the Major Premise False

     When Westcott and Hort published their Greek Text in 1881, all but one
of the more than 200 early Egyptian Papyri were yet to be discovered.
According to their view, none of these Papyri (dated between 100 and 300 A.D.)
should support the readings that are included in the traditional text but
not in ALEPH, B, or D.  They believe their major premise (that the traditional
text was fabricated in the fourth century).
     Sturz [14] has collected lists of readings found in Papyri dated between
100 and 300 A.D. that contradict the major premise of Westcott and Hort.  His
first list gives 150 different readings of the traditional text, that Westcott
and Hort rejected because they were found in neither ALEPH, nor B, nor D.
This evidence is extremely damning to the major premise because it is 50 times
longer than the list Westcott and Hort offer for proof of conflation.  A
second list of Sturz contains 170 readings found in the traditional text that
were confirmed by early Papyri, but were rejected by Westcott and Hort because
they were not found in ALEPH or B but were found in D.  A third list contains
80 readings found in the traditional text that were confirmed by early Papyri,
but were rejected by Westcott and Hort because either ALEPH, or B, or D did
not contain the reading.

(4)  The Beliefs of Westcott and Hort Favor Gnosticism.

"Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light,
and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!",
Isaiah 5:20

     Given the incredible weight of evidence standing against the theory of
Westcott and Hort, and the very thin evidence they offer to establish their
theory, it is natural to ask:  what motivated their theory?  Since Westcott
and Hort say that the church up to their time has been following the wrong
manuscript, they claim that Christianity for the last 1500 years has been a
large heretical sect.  Since their favored manuscripts show Gnostic doctrinal
corruption, it is natural to suspect that they espoused Gnosticism, and this
is the reason for their conclusion.  A brief review of the history of
Gnosticism compared to Westcott and Hort's biographies and works shows this to
be true.  Early in their career Westcott and Hort were open, flagrant
spiritists.  This apostasy continued throughout their life but was veiled in
secrecy for the success of their text critical theory.  The doctrine that they
taught publicly reveals their Gnostic bias.
     One might think that the correlation of Westcott and Hort's heresies
with one of the early heretical groups is nothing more than coincidence.  The
history of the Gnostic heresy makes this thought impossible because Gnosticism
was an extremely popular and repulsive heresy.  The visible roots of
Gnosticism trace back to Philo Judaeus (20 B.C. to 40 A.D.) a learned Jew of
Alexandria who had a school that produced most of the prominent early Gnostic
leaders including Basilides [7, p. 74] who also established a school in
Alexandria.  Basilides was secretive about the unspeakably disgusting
practices, but we know from those who practiced openly (e.g. Carpocrates) that
they cast spells by sorcery, practice dream-bringing of familiar spirits, and
so on.  "In keeping with this they teach that all the vilest things must be
done by those who intend to go through with their initiation into these
'mysteries' or rather abominations; for in no other way can they escape the
'cosmic rulers' than by rendering to them all the due performance of
unspeakable rites." [4, p. 159, p. 87]  These unspeakable rites involved
cannibalism, unlawful intercourse and such like.  It is reported that the
Gnostic movement was the mother of nearly every heresy that plagued early
Christendom [4, p. 86].  Yet they did not represent a monolithic organization
that agreed in doctrine, but "one after another new heresies were invented,
the earlier ones constantly passing away and disappearing, in different ways
at different times, into forms of every shape and character." [4, p. 160]
Because Gnostics claimed to be Christians, it was believed that Christians did
these horrible things, and this was the wellspring of the persecutions. [4, p.
160-161].  The religious doctrines that characterized Gnosticism were not
always found with the unspeakable rites in evidence.  For example, Clement of
Alexandria (150-215) and Origen (185-254) were apparently never accused of
partaking of the secret rites, though they espoused Gnostic doctrine.  It is
difficult to find a heresy from the early church that was not related in some
way to Gnosticism.  One can learn a great deal about the opposing doctrines
that precipitated the creeds by comparing the summary of Gnostic doctrine
presented earlier with the content of the creeds.  It is no coincidence that
Arius (318) the leader of the controversy that opposed the true church and
necessitated the creeds was a presbyter at Alexandria [7, p. 121], the hot-bed
of Gnosticism.
     As an undergraduate in 1851 Westcott organized something called the
Hermes club with Hort and Edward White Benson who later became the Bishop of
Canterbury.  In Hort's own words this was "a society for the investigation of
ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being disposed to believe
that such things really exist." [15, p. 211]  Hort's enthusiasm for
investigating the phenomena was unbounded, he proselytized by passing out
papers by the thousand. [15, p. 219]  Westcott's son says that his father had
a lifelong "faith in what for lack of a better name, one must call
Spiritualism." [11, p. 235]  They were not above recruiting impressionable
students as members.  Henry Sidgwick a student of Westcott's and cousin to
Benson was recruited before he took his degree in 1859.
     Hort suggested that their spiritism remain hidden for the success of
their text theory.  In 1860 (22 years before published) Hort wrote to Westcott
"This may sound cowardice--I have a sort of craving that our text should be
cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with
suspicion.  I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will
undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy will have great difficulties in
finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach and whence
it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms."  [15, p. 445]  And
elsewhere, Hort said "If only we speak our minds, we shall not be able to
avoid giving grave offense to...the miscalled orthodoxy of the day." [15, p.
421]  Westcott evidently agreed, for his son reports in his biography that "My
father labored under the imputation of being 'unsafe'." [11, p. 235] and
"What happened to this (ghostly) Guild in the end I have not discovered.  My
father ceased to interest himself in these matters, not altogether, I believe,
from want of faith in what for lack of a better name one must call
Spiritualism" [11, p. 119]
     Someone today objecting to such membership may be called superstitious
or old fashioned.  But scripture says  "Regard not them that have familiar
spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your
God." Leviticus 19:31, (c.f. Leviticus 20:6 Deuteronomy 18:11)
     Although they never openly claimed to be Gnostics, their favor for
Gnostic doctrine was evident in their life and beliefs.  Hort read Philo
Judaeus more than any other author. [16, p. 485]  Westcott said he was anxious
to learn all he could of "the (Jewish?) literature of the apostolic age"  --
especially Philo Judaes.  [11, p. 233]  Among the beliefs classified as
Gnostic Spritism in section II-A-(1)-(a) Westcott and Hort taught the
following:  that the Father is not God [8,p. 10], that Jesus is not God [8, p.
22-26], that the Holy Spirit is not God [8, p. 15], that the devil is not a
person but a power [8, p. 13], that heaven is not a physical place but purely
spiritual [8, p. 16], that Hell is not a place but represents earthly
suffering before death [8, p. 17].  Among the beliefs classified as Gnostic
Anti-Materialism in section II-A-(1)-(a) Westcott and Hort taught the
following:  that the spirit of man is divine [8, p. 9, 11], that Jesus was a
mere man [8, p. 22-26], that Christ is a possessing spirit that descended at
Jesus' baptism [8, p. 14], that the resurrection of the body of Jesus is not
true [8, p. 32], that the father is the creator of all material including man
in his present state [8, p. 9].  Among the beliefs classified as Gnostic
Illuminism in section II-A-(1)-(a) Westcott and Hort taught:  that it is not
the word of God that is inspired, but the messengers [8, p. 5], that
revelation is in scripture, but not scripture itself [8, p. 5], that God is
the primary revealer (note they say that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not
God, so they must mean spirits by this) [8, p. 7].
     Thus we are left with the conclusion that a group previously discounted
as heretical by the early church was to Westcott and Hort the keeper of the
truest autographs.  These people were made to suffer the brand of heretic, and
up until 1881 languished in obscurity.  In essence what is behind their major
premise is a subtext accusing the Christian church as a whole of false
doctrine and successful suppression of the true church.  But how do we know
what the true Christian church is?  This is not primarily an historical
question, but a doctrinal question.  The true Christian Church is that Church
which publicly teaches the doctrine ordained by God and administers the
sacraments according to Christ's institution.  It is irrational to think that
Gnosticism is true Christianity because the Messiah of Christianity must be
the Messiah who was promised and foretold in the Old Testament Scriptures.
The proof that the publicly accepted Christian Church is heretical must be
made from the Old Testament.  But this Westcott and Hort never do.  In fact
their entire system is impossible in the face of the Old Testament.  For one
need read no further than the first commandment to know that Gnosticism does
not reflect true Judaism.  "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Exodus

B.  Consequent Assumptions of Westcott and Hort
    are False Because the Major Premise is False.

     Recall the major premise of Westcott and Hort: that there was a
conspiracy that fabricated the traditional text.  Derived from their major
premise are several principles used in the text critical method that are wrong
because the major premise is wrong.  Westcott admitted premeditation in the
rejection of the traditional Greek text when, 30 years before it was
published, he said "I am anxious to provide something to replace them." [11,
p. 229]  A summary of the modern principles of text criticism [1, p. 419-453]
will be analyzed in the light of the erroneous nature of their major premise.
As the principles are discussed, note particularly those things denoted in the
right hand column by lower case letters according to the following notation.
Three items are particularly of note (a) the principles which artificially
favor the Gnostic texts and (b) the principles that only make sense if their
major premise is believed (c) the principles that call for something
impossible on the part of the critic.

      Westcott & Hort Principle       |              Analysis
(1)  A scribe usually went about      |  (b)  This makes no sense whatever
blending the texts available to him   |  unless you assume the text was
trying to make improvements to the    |  lost.  What would be the motive for
text.                                 |  a faithful scribe?  To improve
                                      |  God's Word?

  Westcott & Hort     |
      Principle       |                      Analysis
(2)  Older            |  (a)  This principle is wrong.  Observe that the
manuscripts have      |  poorest condition books are those used most
fewer corruptions.    |  frequently.  The roughest book I own is my Bible.
                      |  The only way a book can last a long time is if it
                      |  is so corrupt that it is never used.  The fact
                      |  that a book has survived for a very long time is
                      |  an indicator of corruption.  Two cases in point:
                      |  B which was on a forgotten shelf in the Vatican
                      |  library, and ALEPH which was literally snatched
                      |  from the waste fire.
                      |  (c)  While it would be true that older
                      |  manuscripts are more reliable if the later
                      |  manuscript is known to have been copied only from
                      |  the earlier one, this information is unknown.  If
                      |  many independent later manuscripts are compared
                      |  using a majority vote, an error rate is achieved
                      |  that is lower than the error rate of single older
                      |  copies.  For example, if 3 manuscripts are used
                      |  with an error rate of 1/30 words each (12th
                      |  century) an error rate of 1/300 is achieved in
                      |  the resultant text.  This error rate is more than
                      |  3 times lower than a single reliable 4th century
                      |  manuscript.

      Westcott & Hort Principle       |              Analysis
(3)  You must not look at each        |  (a)  This principle prevents them
variant point-by-point within a       |  from being forced to prove their
document to determine the             |  assertion.  Who can present any
character, but you must make a        |  evidence against them other than
value judgment of the document as a   |  point-by-point.  With this
whole.                                |  principle they can make any
                                      |  judgment about any document they
                                      |  wish and claim academic superiority
                                      |  without any evidence whatever.

      Westcott & Hort Principle       |              Analysis
(4)  If a document is of mixed type   |  (c)  Who can tell what the two
(appears to be a harmonization of     |  originals were without having them?
two contradictory texts), then a      |  This makes putting the toothpaste
critic must divorce the two types     |  back in the tube look easy.
and rely on the older or more         |  (b)  Unless you can prove that a
reliable type.                        |  fabrication occurred in the past,
                                      |  this principle is wrong.  It
                                      |  essentially assumes deletions
                                      |  didn't occur but blending.
                                      |  (a)  The critic is totally free to
                                      |  choose any false reading he wishes.
                                      |  He is also unassailable on this
                                      |  point if he posits anything at all
                                      |  because who can prove any such
                                      |  fabrication wrong without having
                                      |  the originals.  He can also claim
                                      |  that all evidence that disagrees
                                      |  with the hypothesized reading
                                      |  supports it because it is longer,
                                      |  and must be a blend.

      Westcott & Hort Principle       |              Analysis
(5)  A very small group may be        |  (c)  The formation of groups is
good, a very large group may be       |  something which they first
bad.  (By group they mean a set of    |  introduced, but they never clearly
manuscripts that give largely the     |  defined the criteria for group
same reading and so form a common     |  formation or explained what
witness)                              |  constituted their groups or how
                                      |  they arrived at them.
                                      |  (a)  Could they perhaps be thinking
                                      |  of their small group of corrupt
                                      |  witnesses over against the +95%
                                      |  large group that supports the
                                      |  traditional text?  A principle this
                                      |  obvious shows lack of imagination

      Westcott & Hort Principle       |              Analysis
(6)  If of 10 readings 9 agree and    |  (b)  This only makes sense if they
one is different, the tenth is        |  are talking about a fabrication.
preferred.                            |  Since there is no such thing, this
                                      |  principle leads to a wrong text.

  Westcott & Hort     |
      Principle       |                      Analysis
(7)  Counting         |  (a)  How convenient for Gnosticism.  Take an
manuscripts must      |  analogy to an election process:  Suppose there
play no part at all   |  are three candidates I, II, and III.  99.99% vote
because all           |  for I, 0.004% for II, and 0.001% for III.  By
manuscripts that      |  their reasoning this election is a tie because
agree descend from a  |  there are three candidates.  While it is true
common ancestor, and  |  that you must select one of the three, that
so must be counted    |  doesn't mean that all three candidates are
as a single example.  |  equally supported by votes.
                      |  (c)  They fail to inform the reader that no one
                      |  has been able to prove that any extant manuscript
                      |  is the ancestor of any other extant manuscript.
                      |  We have a host of witnesses, but we know
                      |  absolutely nothing about how they descended or
                      |  are related to one another.  Since this
                      |  information is lacking, any hypothesis of
                      |  ancestry is unfounded.  By this ruse they try to
                      |  collapse a host of independent witnesses into one
                      |  opinion which they will ignore.
                      |  (c)  This assumes the critic knows the answer
                      |  ahead of time.  How else can he be assured that
                      |  the majority of witnesses don't favor the right
                      |  answer?  Why complicate the matter with
                      |  terminology and learning.  They should adopt the
                      |  simple principle that the critic may choose
                      |  whatever text he wants, in spite of all evidence,
                      |  and save us the trouble of reading their circular
                      |  reasoning.

      Westcott & Hort Principle       |              Analysis
(8)  The only kind of consent         |  (c)  Marvelous!  Here we are again
between documents that shows          |  being able to tell which documents
community of origin is community of   |  are in error.  If the critic knows
error.                                |  what an error is when he sees one,
                                      |  then he must also know what the
                                      |  true text is.  It would be nice, if
                                      |  Westcott and Hort claimed to know
                                      |  the true text, but they claim the
                                      |  opposite.  They leave us to doubt
                                      |  saying they are left to subjective
                                      |  considerations.  Then how can they
                                      |  spot errors?

      Westcott & Hort Principle       |              Analysis
(9)  In a mixture the ancestor        |  (b)  There is no such thing as
stands nearer to the autograph than   |  mixture that has been demonstrated
any of it's later copies.             |  so this principle is wrong.
Therefore a mixture cannot speak      |  (c)  Recall that not a single case
against an ancestor.                  |  of manuscript ancestry has ever
                                      |  been proven.  They are theorizing
                                      |  about thin air.

      Westcott & Hort Principle       |              Analysis
(10)  The harder (poor                |  (b)  This only makes sense if it is
grammatically) and shorter reading    |  believed that a fabrication took
is preferred.  (This assumes that     |  place.  This essentially assumes
the source texts were bad             |  that the penmen who spoke Greek
grammatically and that they were      |  fluently didn't even bother to
shorter than the resultant text)      |  check their own grammar in what
                                      |  they wrote, and that the Holy Ghost
                                      |  didn't care.
                                      |  (a)  This principle favors the
                                      |  Gnostic corruptions, because the
                                      |  Gnostics had a low regard for
                                      |  Scripture and changed words to suit
                                      |  them.  A lapse in grammar is more
                                      |  likely to occur in this procedure
                                      |  because grammatical agreement is
                                      |  likely to slip by such a butcher,
                                      |  who attempted to falsify what he
                                      |  found.  Unless it is a first draft,
                                      |  native writers tend to use flawless
                                      |  grammar.  Since many doctrinally
                                      |  motivated corruptions are
                                      |  omissions, this principle favors
                                      |  the Gnostic corruptions.

C.  The Text Criticism Method of Westcott and Hort

     The method comes down to five steps.  (1)  Classify documents according
to similar type of reading.  (2)  Find the Parent for each type of text (that
is:  the oldest of that type).  (3)  Ignore all the rest of the evidence
except the Parents.  (4)  Ignore those parents which are believed to be a
mixture of other parents.  (5)  Where the remaining parents disagree you must
rely on the personal taste of the revered experts.
     From the fallacies pointed out in the previous section the reader is
able to list what is wrong with each step of this method.  The biggest fallacy
in my estimation is step (3), when all evidence but the parents is ignored.
The implicit assumption is that the oldest document that agrees broadly with a
large class of readings is the document from which all latter documents were
copied.  No ancestry link between any two manuscripts has ever been
established.  The fact that one document has survived longer than others is
more likely evidence that it was not in the same lineage at all.  This
implicit assumption is nothing but the opposite of the sensible assumption.
By this assumption, the entire host of extant evidence is reduced to the
earliest, and therefore most corrupt, representative.  It is perhaps more
amazing that this one representative is subsequently ignored for subjective
reasons.  Such a procedure is extremely damaging to the true faith because we
know that some manuscripts within this era were fabricated by people hostile
to God's word.  Surely ignoring the doctrinal deviation at each variation is
the same as giving equal time to heretics.  But Westcott and Hort do more than
that, they enshrine the doctrinal deviations due to their own theological
bias.  It is a sad commentary on the current crop of Text Critical scholars
that they call conservatives who support the traditional text theologically
biased, but say that Westcott and Hort who were biased with a heresy were
"objective." [12, p. 204]

D.  The Application of the Text Criticism Method is Disastrous.

     The method of text criticism defined by Westcott and Hort has been
applied with disastrous results.  Westcott and Hort themselves used it as an
excuse to disregard the traditional text entirely.  They defined the following
four categories.

Traditional_text: (also called Byzantine or Syrian or Antiochian or Graeco-
  Syrian or Constantinopolitan or Asiatic or Oriental or Koine or Common or
  Alpha)  A lot of names for something which Modern Text Critics only ignore.
  Westcott and Hort claim this is a blending of Western and Neutral texts.
Western_text:  represented by D.  Westcott and Hort claim this was a
  corruption of the Neutral text.
Alexandrian_text:  Westcott and Hort claim this was generated by an attempt to
  correct the Western to agree with Neutral.
Neutral_text:  Represented by B, and vaguely by ALEPH.  Disagreeing with
  Traditional, Western and Syrian.  Westcott and Hort say no manuscript,
  version, or patristic writer preserves this text in its original purity.

     These are new terms, but the conclusions have already been presented.
In the new terminology, Westcott and Hort believed that there were two New
Testament text revisions.  They said that the Syrian text is a conflation of
Western and Neutral types.  Since the Syrian is a blend it must be ignored.
(The traditional text of scripture is a forgery).  They said that the Neutral
text type is the original and was corrupted to form the Western type.  The
Western type was made closer to the Neutral through revision, resulting in the
Alexandrian text type.  Since they say you should only use the oldest document
of any given type, this means codices B and ALEPH must be used exclusively to
form the New Testament.  (The Gnostic corrupted texts must be used to replace
the traditional New Testament.)
     Recent text critics have not blindly accepted the complete system of
Westcott and Hort.  Indeed there is room for arguing that if all the
criticisms of Westcott and Hort are gathered from the various modern text
critics, a complete refutation of their system may be assembled.  While they
have not been uncritical, recent text critics have in large measure adopted
Westcott and Hort's major premise, conclusions, text criticism method, text
type definitions, and favored corrupt manuscripts.  This is why so much space
has been given in the present essay for refutation of Westcott and Hort.
Modern text critics' conclusions are in practice identical with those of
Westcott and Hort.  They still ignore the traditional text and believe in
spite of the evidence that there was a conspiracy that fabricated the
traditional text.  Modern text critics trust ALEPH and B so that their
resultant text differs very little from that of Westcott and Hort.  Modern
text critics adopt Westcott and Hort's critical method and principles; how
could they possibly come to true conclusions when at the foundation of their
system is an outrageous lie?
     Recent text critics have eliminated the Neutral category, saying that
ALEPH and B are the oldest of the Alexandrian text type.  This is a fatal
admission.  The witness comes from those who adopt the theory of Westcott and
Hort, so the witness is biased toward their view.  It shows that the category
of Neutral was a begging of the question.  The major premise, that an
authoritative revision produced the traditional text, has grown into an
exalted myth among text critics which no one dare question.  Since no one has
ever shown that there was a revision, each critic may believe his own
mechanism, author, and source texts of the mythical revision.  The so called
experts are not able to convince one another.  Their various conflicting
opinions demonstrate that it has not been proved.  If it had they would all
agree.  For example, Von Soden thinks there were three revisions instead of
two, but no one really agrees with this. [14, p. 22]  Streeter disagrees with
the notion of authoritative revision saying the revision was not global, but
local.  A small minority rejecting both of these innovations, still cling
entirely to the whole system of Westcott and Hort, "neutral" text type and
all.  No one is allowed to speak of manuscripts among the modern critics
unless he uses the three remaining text types defined by Westcott and Hort.
This is amazing, since Westcott and Hort never even bothered to explain what
they meant by the categories they used, other than which manuscripts they
thought to be the earliest representative of the type.  The practice of only
trusting the earliest representative of a type is very attractive to the
modern text critics because they are lazy.  Why bother looking at more than
the earliest text type since the problem must be solved with subjective
considerations anyway.  Instead they just trust the earliest representatives
(ALEPH and B).
     That the modern text critics attempt to build theory based on a
foundation of sand is amazing.  But the reader should recall that the theory
is very complimentary to the scholastic elite.  The acceptance of the theory
is self-serving and self-aggrandizing.  They want to have their publications
well-received by their peers.  But most of all they want to deny the
inspiration and preservation of the Scripture because it gives them the
opportunity to substitute their own word for God's Word.  They want to sit in
judgment of God and be better than Him.  The temptation is not new, in the
garden of Eden the devil brought about the fall with this temptation saying
"ye shall be as God" Genesis 3:5.
     It is God's Word that created and maintains the present order of the
physical world.  The moderns lie when they say that the physical world created
or determines God's Word.  This lie is the mark God has given for us to
recognize this apostasy. (2 Pet 3:3-13)

E.  Modern Text Critics have Never Answered the Points
      Raised in this Essay Although the Weighty Arguments Were Cited
      within 2 Years of the Publication of the Text Critical Method.

     The reader should not think that a proper view of text criticism is no-
where to be found in the present day.  There are a large number of scholars
today who are questioning more and more of the text critical principles they
inherited from Westcott and Hort.  They have not totally thrown off the yoke
of erroneous assumptions brought by Westcott and Hort for the success of their
Gnostic New Testament.  Nor is the Greek text of Westcott and Hort thoroughly
Gnostic.  About 10% of the New Testament was doubted or rejected by Westcott
and Hort.  Recent scholars have assembled texts that place more weight on the
traditional text than Westcott and Hort.  Hodges, Farstad, et al. assembled a
text they mis-named the "Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text."
The name is misleading because they have incorporated minority readings [12,
p.196], yet they have reduced the variation with the traditional text down to
1%.  A huge step in the right direction.  Other modern authors that advocate
the correct view include Pickering, Moorman, etc.  A Greek text that truly
contains the majority text has been assembled by Pierpont and Robinson.  The
recognition of the King James Version as the best translation is becoming
common among layman.  A recent book criticizing the modern versions has sold
50,000 copies. [5]
     Recently some text critics have tried to refute the supporters of the
traditional text.  The attempt of Wallace [12] is particularly noteworthy
because it is very recent, and shows the typical arguments.  The ammunition of
the text critics consists mainly of name calling, name dropping, and ignoring
the arguments which, they admit, have been known for over 100 years but remain
     Name calling:  the first line of defense is to claim that traditional
text advocates don't have proper credentials. [12, p. 188, 197, 200 (note
96)].  When traditionalists do have credentials acceptable to them they call
us other names.  Burgon doesn't deserve to be answered because he has an acid
pen. [12, p. 189] Westcott wouldn't read or answer him because of "violence"
in his writing. [12, p. 189]  Hoskier may be ignored because he is "quirkish"
[12, p. 197 (note 83)].  Hills is accused of academic dishonesty because he
only got his credentials by pretending to believe the modern Text Critical
School [12, p. 192].  Hills and his followers are theologically biased
(believe inspiration and preservation) [12, p. 192, 197, 198, 201 (esp. note
97), 202, 203, 204].  Traditionalists are called "schizophrenic," [12, p. 213]
"backwaters," [12, p. 185] and "prejudiced." [12, p. 201]  Their views are
called a "scholarly curiosity", which doesn't rate an answer. [12, p. 200].
     Name dropping:  the second line of defense is to say all the really
important text critics accept the views of Westcott and Hort and so you have
to accept the more learned view.  Thus famous scholars are paraded who dismiss
the traditional text with a wave of the hand without adducing any reasons
whatever.  Thus Martin Vincent, A. T. Robertson, Leo Vagany, Bruce Metzger are
paraded. [12, p. 189]  So also G. D. Kilpatrick [12, p. 192] and Greenlee [12,
p. 200] are cited.  Even the author, Daniel B. Wallace, references his own
works, and dismisses Traditional Text advocates out of hand without any proof.
[12, p. 200 (note 96), p. 208 (notes 134-6)]  When modern critics reject the
traditional view without evidence, this procedure of refutation is evidence of
the poverty of their argument.  Later, when it is admitted that the better
traditionalist scholars have never been answered, [12, p. 189] it shows why
name dropping must be employed.
     If traditionalists are really such unlearned dolts, why can they not be
answered convincingly without resorting to name calling and name dropping as
two main lines of attack?  As highly learned as the elite critics are, it
should be child's play to answer simpletons like me.  Yet their silence is
devastating.  They admit that no point by point rebuttal to Burgon has ever
been prepared.  [12, p. 189]  Again, it is argued that the acceptance of the
traditional text is a 'scholarly curiosity'.  And since there are no text
critics alive today that believe it, it will not be answered.  Yet they admit
that there are prejudiced, fundamentalist, backwater, schizophrenics who
believe it.  It may seem strange that their learned fury pleases me.  Without
it, it would be difficult to illustrate that they really have no convincing
arguments.  Wallace is extremely convincing that he cannot answer the
traditionalists, simply because in the end, he admits he must ignore their
arguments and call them names, and find excuses for not considering what they
say.  He stands before us as one of the many so-called scholars who write
before they read, and condemn before they consider.
     I thank thee Lord God heavenly father that thou hast hid these things
from the wise and the prudent and hast revealed them unto babes.  For thus it
pleases God to reveal the devil's mask to all men low and high.

1.  An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, 2nd Ed., A. H. McNeile,
     Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1955.
2.  The New Testament in the Original Greek,  Text revised by Brooke Foss
     Westcott D. D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort D.D.  Cambridge and London
     1881.  Volume 2 Introduction.
3.  The Revision Revised,  John William Burgon B.D.  Dean of Chichester.
     October 31, 1883.
4.  Eusebius The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, Translated
     with an introduction by G. A. Williamson.  Penguin Books Baltimore
     Maryland 1965.
5.  New Age Bible Versions, G. A. Riplinger.  A. V. Publications  Munroe Falls
     Ohio, 1993.
6.  R. G. Taylor, Distorted Scripture:  Analysis of the New International
     Version of the Holy Bible Compared to the King James Version, New Haven
     Indiana July 1995.
7.  A History of the Christian Church, Lars P. Qualben Thomas Nelson and Sons,
     New York, 1942.
8.  Heresies of Westcott & Hort, Revelation D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D., 1979, by
     Plains Baptist Challenger, Lubbock, Texas.
9.  Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Volume I, Josh McDowell, Here's Life
     Publishers, Inc., San Bernardino CA, 1986.
10.  The Shorter Works of Ivan Panin, The British Israel Association 1238A
     Seymour Street Vancouver, 1934.
11.  The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. I, Arthur Westcott,
     London:  Macmillan and Co., Limited 1903.
12.  Daniel B. Wallace, The Majority-Text Theory:  History, Methods and
     Critique, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society June 1994 pp.
13.  Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament  From Philologist to
     Theologian, Erika Rummel, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1942.
14.  The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism, H. A. Sturz,
     H. A.  Thomas Nelson, NY 1984.
15.  The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, Arthur Hort,
     Macmillan and Co. Ltd., London, 1896.
16.  The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. II, Arthur Hort,
     Macmillan and Co. Ltd., London, 1896.

This document may be reproduced in its entirety free of charge for
non-commercial private use only.  This document may not be otherwise
reproduced in whole or in part without the express written consent
of the authors.

Reproduction Information:  The pagination is consistent with
word for windows 6.0c top margin 0.6", bottom margin 0.6"
                      right margin 1" left margin 1"
                      True Type Courier New 10 pt font

|  Jeffrey A. Young, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering (Digital Communication)  |
|    Seminary training from my Pastor since fall '89 (currently 2/3 done)  |
|  Synodical Affiliation:  Lutheran Churches of the Reformation            |
|  Church:  Christ Lutheran Church of the Reformation, Ft. Wayne, IN       |
|  Employment:  Magnavox Ft. Wayne, IN (Soon to be part of Hughes Aircraft)|


Sojourners' Site IndexSojourners' Site Index Listing of Most Pages on All Sites


If you write reporting a problem, please send the url with the post or name of the page and copy some of the text you are reporting.
I'm normally way too busy to reply to all my eMail, especially long messages. If you have a question that only requires a short reply, I'll try to answer it if I can. I do read sincere mail and thank you in advance for your valuable feedback!
You can write me at: Jody <Sojourner@PureWords.org>