Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

It is easier to characterize an article as a “rambling response” than it is to answer it. “Larry has not answered my argument,” he avers. Let the reader judge.

Stanley says I have violated Matthew 18:15 by not coming to him “directly.” Stanley, let me introduce you to yourself. You say I did wrong by not coming to you directly. Well, why did you not come to me directly about my’ “violation”? You made my “violation” public without coming to me to “respond directly.” Did you not then violate Matthew 18:15? Paul rebuked Peter “to the face . . . before them all” for his action regarding the Gentiles. Shall we, charge Paul with having “violated” Matthew 18:15 (Gal. 2:11-114)? Stanley, on Matthew IS: 15, have you “perverted a beautiful passage on forgiveness and placed it in the context of a brother being saved and lost from heaven’s point, of, view, when the subject of the passage is earthly forgiveness”?

“But all one can get out of Acts 8:18-24 is saved, lost, saved, if that.” See my first response. Still, I wonder if brother Paher thinks Simon is a case of “faith failing”? Was it, Stanley? Was Simon’s salvation “interrupted” by his heart not being “right in the sight of God”? Did his “wickedness” cause his salvation to be “interrupted”? And how dare anyone mock an alleged “yo-yo” doctrine when he supports a salvation that can be “interrupted.” Further, we need to know if an “interrupted” salvation can be restored, and if it can, can it be “interrupted” again? If so, would this be an “on-off, yes-no, up-down thing”? If my “yo-yo string is jammed,” his is fluttering up and down quite nicely.

Brother Paher says, “Anyone with a profound sense of sin would not argue about how God saves and what he does about sins, day in and day out.” Who says so? Why, Stanley W. Paher! If any of you brethren “argue about how God saves and what he does about sins,” you do not have “a profound sense of sin.” Stanley, does that include arguments with alien sinners “about how God saves and what he does about sins, day-in and day-out”? Further, Stanley has argued this issue in this exchange and in Vanguard for months. Stanley, does your arguing about these matters prove that you do not have “a profound sense of sin”?

I Stanley says that, “To Larry and others of the Guardian of Truth, Faith and Facts, and Searching the Scriptures triad of papers sin is treated subjectively rather than objectively” and that such concepts do not save from sin itself,” nor do these concepts save one “from the corruption of a man’s heart.” Who are these “others” of Guardian of Truth, Faith and Facts, and Searching the Scriptures? Such men as Connie Adams, H.E. Phillips, John and Robert Welch, Ron Halbrook, James R. Cope, Eugene Britnell, Marshall and Herschel Patton, Hoyt Houchen, Dudley Ross Spears, Weldon Warnock, Bill Cavender, Irven Lee and a number of “others” will feel indicted by your remarks. Are all of the men on the staffs of these papers all lumped together with me? If not all are, which ones?

“Righteousness . . . comes through grace-faith and not solely by obeying New Testament commandments. ” True, but who has said that righteousness does not come “through grace-faith,” but solely by obeying New Testament commandments”? Who Stanley?

“Remission of sins . . . was never intended to come by mere law keeping.” Again, true, but who has ever contended that “remission of sins” comes “by mere law keeping”? Stanley, check the staffs of the “triad of papers” and name just one who has ever so argued.

Addendum

In addition to his response above, brother Paher sent along a note to me with further argument on Acts 8:23, “For I see that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” Stanley cited an alternate reading which would translate Acts 8:23 thusly, “For I see that thou wilt become gall (or a gall root) of bitterness and a bond of iniquity.” Brother Paher then commented on this rendering, “In view of v. 23 . . . I would not bet the ranch that Simon was lost. ‘Wilt become’ means that if he pursued his present course he would be bound by his sins. Nothing here to establish your yo-yo doctrine, or lost-saved-lost-saved within a day’s experience. Thus Simon is not an example of yo-yo-ism in the context of the present on-going debate. I will not be corresponding with you again on this matter, unless you change your mind. I can give you the most sophisticated arguments and you, like the Mormons merely brush them aside and not even consider them.”

Earlier, brother Paher indicated that Simon, from “Acts 8: 18-24” may have been “saved, lost, saved,” but now he “would not bet the ranch that Simon was lost. ” In five debates with Baptists on the apostasy question, I have never met a Baptist who would “bet the ranch that Simon was lost,”either. What, then is the condition of a man who has been told: (1) “Thy money perish with thee”; (2) “Thy heart is not right in the sight of God”; (3) that he needs to “repent of this they wickedness and pray” for forgiveness?Stanley, was Simon lost or saved? It is time for one of your “sophisticated arguments,” Stanley. Tell us, or will you “brush” these questions aside and . . not even consider them” and be “like the Mormons”? Stanley, would you “bet the ranch that Simon was saved”?

Finally, in a memo to me, appended to his response, brother Paher adds, in part:

“The bottom line seems to be that it is o.k. for you and your editor friends to bully your way in these types of situations. It’s o.k. for you guys to throw your weight around, exert undue influences over Christians and churches afar off. But when anyone like myself says enough and responds to your advances . . . well, somehow it’s all wrong and you are easily offended. If you enter the polemical arena, then you have to be able to take criticism, roll with the punches.

“The time has come and now is (Jn. 4:23) that many concerned Christians like myself are rising up and calling into question you and others who employ the unfair tactics you use and meeting head-on your brand of partyism, brotherhood politics, economic and journalistic control, hiring and firing of preachers, and other ungodly and unrestrained behavior. The time has come and now is to point out the inconsistency of the Guardian of Truth, Searching the Scriptures, and Faith and Facts editors and staff writers who, on the one hand rightly oppose the liberal cooperative efforts but seek to exhibit a similar if not identical sphere of influence over preachers and churches, thus similarly violating Peter’s ‘among you’ for proper limits of evangelism and edification. Is there not enough for you to do in Pekin, Illinois?”

Stanley Paher can decry and denounce our efforts in strong terms. That is fine. We can take the heat, especially since Stanley is turning his stove off. But remember who the “bad guys” are. It is alright for him to charge us as being a “joyless, loveless, semi-neurotic band of people.” It is acceptable for him to charge me with purposely and willfully trying ” to confuse” others. He can compare me to the Mormons and say that I will “brush” aside and refuse to “consider” his “sophisticated arguments.” He can state that the “editors and staff writers” of Guardian of Truth, Faith and Facts, and Searching the Scriptures and “others” are bullies who “throw your weight around,” “exert undue influences over Christians and churches,” “employ . . . unfair tactics,” practice “partyism, brotherhood politics, economic and journalistic control, hiring and firing of preachers, and other ungodly and unrestrained behavior.”

Yes, Stanley can say a that and be a “concerned” Christian, but when we respond, we are “loveless, semi-neurotic” bullies who cannot take the heat. My apologies to all you brethren on the staffs of the papers and to . ‘others” who have been summarily dispatched by brother Paher. I did not mean to drag all of you down with me. With Stanley’s view, though, do not worry. If Simon was not lost, surely the Lord would not condemn an “ungodly” partyistic bully who suffers from neurosis.

Indeed, “the time has come and now is” when all should realize the importance of these issues. Some have deemed that instrumental music separates one from God. Others say that the sins of the social gospel do not put them out of God’s grace. Consider the consequences before you dismiss this as a “diatribe” or a “preacher fuss.” Brother Paher may well oppose liberalism, but his arguments are used by the advocates of the positions cited above.

As he stated, brother Paher may choose not to respond further. He may leave the kitchen, that is his prerogative, but we are staying. He need not bandy his views about in public media and then sue for privacy. These issues will be met, and the truth will be defended.

Emancipation Proclamation

In deference to brother Paher, however, I now relinquish my brotherhood political position. All of those under my economic and journalistic control (you know who you are) are now henceforth and forever free and independent. You may go your way. To those churches that I have controlled, you may now hire and fire preachers on your own from this day forth. You need not fear any sanctions or reprisals from me. My days as a semi-neurotic bully are over, except, of course, at Pekin, where I shall continue my tyrannical domination and woe unto all them that fear not. Amen. Thanks to brother Mike Willis who has so charitably granted me this leave of absence from my office.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 1, pp. 8-9, 19
January 3, 1985

By Larry Ray Hafley

Brother Paher refers “to that august magazine Guardian of Truth. ” He charges me with misunderstanding, with “subtle . . . defense of a false concept,” and with straining the Scriptures “to prove (my) point.” He refers to me “and the rest of your ilk.” An “ilk” is what you generally call a group or band of people when you dislike them and what they stand for, but I am certain that this is not how brother Paher uses the term. He loves me and my ilk. He says, “I think you do see the difference, but you want to confuse unsettling (unsettled?) minds on this matter,” thus, he accuses me of deliberate deceit. He indicts me with perversion of Scripture, and says I “unjustly and unfairly reply” to honest argument. He alleges that I am guilty of “fuzzy thinking” and of making arguments “just too far out of touch with reality to comment upon He says I have a “shallow conception of justification,” but he lets me off the hook by saying that I do not have a yo-yo position. With a of the above items, it is a real relief to learn that I do not have a yo-yo position. Thanks, Stanley.

Well, all of that from a loving, sweet-spirited brother, in just one page, is certainly evidence of the fact that Guardian of Truth and its “ilk” does not have a corner on the market when it comes to wholesale (or retail) condemnation. My fellow ilks and I must be getting soft. We have allowed someone else to become as harsh and censorious as we are. It is a good thing I am disposed to let such remarks go unmentioned. They are merely assumed and asserted. They are presumed, not proven. So, I will not even bother to refer to them.

However, when brother Paher refers to my ilk brethren as being “timid” and “confused people who are uncertain about their salvation”; and when he says they are a “joyless, loveless, semi-neurotic band of people, ” he has really struck my neurotic nerve. Imagine, fellow ilks of the world, if you happen to agree with ‘the position I hold, you are timid, confused, joyless, loveless, and semi-neurotic. Wow, all of that from a fearless, understanding, joyful, loving, stable brother like Stanley Paher is enough to push all of us like over the edge of total neurosis.

I There is one saving grace about all of those charges. Even if they are all true, we are saved anyway. You see, brother Paher’s “constant cleansing” view takes care of it. So, even if you are a, timid, confused, joyless, loveless, semi-neurotic with a shallow conception of justification that causes Baptists to make fun of you, do not worry, because the blood of Christ constantly cleanses you of sin and neurosis. I guess it might even constantly cleanse those who say such things about you.

Arguments Examined

“Brother Paher says the first three examples; namely, Simon, the ‘Sorcerer, the immoral .brother in I Corinthians 5 and the Galatians, are not relevant because brother Cargile was referring to a “context of day-in-day-out sinning and praying.” If the examples were “day in-day out sinning and praying,” then they would apply, I suppose. Alright, if Simon, the Corinthian brother and the Galatians were not involved in “day-in-day-out sinning and praying,” what was it? What scriptural criteria may we use to distinguish between “day-in-day-out sinning and praying” from other just plain old vanilla sin? 1 John 1:7-9 does not distinguish “day-in-day-out sinning and praying” from other types, kinds, shades, or flavors. Perhaps if you are not semi-neurotic you can tell the difference.

Brother Paher says I cannot use Simon as an example of lost-saved-lost-saved. “The best you can do is ‘saved lost.”‘ That is quite an admission. If Simon repented, was he saved again? If so, that would be saved, lost, saved – shades of yo-yoism. We may have to turn brother Paher over to brother Cargile for a yo-yo lesson. The course has its ups and downs, or so I am told. But with the view of “constant cleansing,” how could one become lost? Brother Paher admits that Simon did, that Simon did pass from saved to lost. With his view of “constant cleansing, ” it is hard to see how.

But back to the point. Can I show that Simon was lost-saved-lost-saved? Let us see. Simon is introduced as a lost man (Acts 8:9-11). He is then saved (Acts 8:12, 13; Mk. 16:16). He is later said to be in “the gall of bitterness, and the bond of iniquity,” hence, lost (Acts 8:23; Matt. 7:23). Simon requests prayer on his behalf. If prayer is offered, he is forgiven and saved (1 Jn. 1:7-9). Therefore, Simon was lost-saved-lost-saved. I would say he was down, up, down, up, but that sounds too much like a yo-yo, so I will not say it.

Brother Paher thinks my fourth illustration is a perversion because I “have placed it in the context of a brother being saved and lost from heaven’s point of view, when the subject of the passage is earthly forgiveness.” So, matters regarding “earthly forgiveness” are not about “being saved and lost from heaven’s point of view.” Think that over very carefully.

Note the context of Matthew 18:21,22. See particularly verses 15-18. Sounds like it may involve more than just “earthly forgiveness.” Further, “But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ” (1 Cor. 8:12). Would such a sin involve 44 earthly forgiveness I I only? When I sin against my brother, I sin agamist Christ. If not, what scriptural, standard distinguishes? I would like to know because there may be some brethren I would like to sin against, and if there is a way to do it without “being saved and lost from heaven’s point of view,” I would like to know it so I can do it and not risk my soul.

More could be said about related texts such as Matthew 5:23,24, and Luke 17:1-4, but suffice it, to say that being able to sin against my brother, necessitating earthly forgiveness, but not “being saved and lost from heaven’s point of view” opens up broad opportunities for wickedness. We need some more information from the word of God about such sins which do not affect our salvation. Plus, brother Paher’s view makes us go in and out and up and down, at least with respect to “earthly forgiveness.” Is there an element of yo-yoism in relations with our brethren?

My number five example is just too far out of touch with reality for brother Paher to comment upon it. I shall let the reader be the judge. If it is that unreal, it ought to be easy to show.

I accept “the Bible position of justification (Rom. 4:16).”‘ I remember, too, that “the faith of Abraham” had “steps” and conditions that one must “walk in” (Rom. 4:12, 16; 1 Jn. 1:7), and I accept those steps.

Baptists Make Fun of Me

If the Baptists ever stop making fun of me, I will worry. I have no desire to accept a position on sin and forgiveness regarding the possibility of apostasy that would cause a Baptist to cease making fun of me. If Baptists do not make fun of brother Paher on those issues, I do not think I would brag about it.

In debate with Baptists, I argue that a child of God (Simon the Sorcerer, for example) can so sin as to be lost in hell. The Baptist says, “No, he cannot because the child of God has ‘constant cleansing’ by the blood of Christ (1 Jn. 1:7).” 1 respond, “The Christian has conditional cleansing by the blood of Christ (I Jn. 1:7-9). The issue is not, ‘Does the blood of Christ cleanse one from all unrighteousness?’ That is not the issue. Does the blood cleanse us unconditionally, without the terms of 1 John 1:7-9? My Baptist opponent says God will save a man who commits adultery and murder, like David, even if he dies in the act, and he cites 1 John 1:7 to prove it.”

How do men like Stanley Paher respond without becoming timid, confused, joyless, loveless, semi-neurotics with a shallow concept of justification?

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 1, pp. 6-7, 19
January 3, 1985

By Irven Lee

Let us look at some of the best men who have died through no fault of their own. At the head of the fist, of course, would be Jesus of Nazareth who went about doing good. He was tempted in all points as we are, but there was no sin in His life. He was despised and rejected of men, but He showed no sign of hatred in His entire life in the flesh. He was as innocent and quiet as the lamb on the day of His illegal, cruel treatment and mockery during His trials before Annas, Caiaphas, Herod, and Pilate. He prayed for the people while He was on the cross, and it was on that cross that He paid the redemption price for sinful men. He taught men to overcome evil with good, and He has turned millions from evil to good through the preaching of the story of His life, His death, and His resurrection.

Abel being dead yet speaketh (Heb. 11:4). He pleased God by his sacrifice that was offered by faith. No fault of his is mentioned, but he was killed by the jealous violator of God’s law. This first recorded murder was in the first family on earth, and the record of the unholy event is in the first book of the Bible (Gen. 4). Have you thought of how many sins that are so common in America today were found among the people mentioned in the book of Genesis? There was lying, drunkenness, murder, stealing, fornication, hatred, jealousy, love of money, and lust in the heart that led to overt acts.

“God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth . . . and it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold I will destroy them with the earth” (Gen. 6:5-13). When the Lord was ready to destroy the earth, it was a time when “the earth was filled with violence” (Gen. 6:11). One thing that God hates is “hands that shed innocent blood” (Prov. 6:17). Men who know something of what God has said realize that He said, “Thou shalt not kill.” This is first recorded when God spoke as mount Sinai quaked and smoked, and God Himself gave the commandment with the thundering trumpet voice so that even Moses did “exceedingly fear and quake” (Heb. 12:21). “Moses said unto the people, Fear not, for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not” (Ex. 20:20).

The New Testament speaks as plainly against murder and against the anger that may lead to it (Matt. 5:21,22). We are taught to understand that those who have “trodden under foot the Son of God” are worthy of “sorer punishment” than those who received capital punishment because they “despised Moses’ law. ” It is still God who says, “Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense.” “The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hand of the living God.” Let willful sinners have the “fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation” (Heb. 10:26-31). Abel’s blood cried unto God from the ground. God had no trouble learning who was guilty of the murder (Gen. 4:10). “God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7). Many do not realize that God has spoken and means what He says. Do you? Do your children?

Neither the Democrats not the Republicans can stop the crime wave in our country, but parents with great faith who own well worn Bibles could in their own special realm of influence. Why write here of the wave of violence that covers this land? Which criminal will read this and be converted? We are writing this as an ounce of prevention. Some who have taken guns and entered banks and other places of business have nominal church members as parents, and the robbers themselves, in some cases, have been baptized. I find undisciplined and untaught children in “church homes” that already show the complete lack of respect for God and man that is the background for a life of violence. I am begging those who do read this to please work at the task of building reverence for God, respect for man, and self discipline in the hearts of your children. Has God spoken in vain on such serious crimes?

Jonah, after a period of rebellion and a rude awakening, finally went to Nineveh to “preach unto it the preaching” that God had commanded (Jonah 3:2). He must have put his point across because the King said, “Let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands” (3:8). Nineveh was in great danger of being destroyed, and violence is singled out as one reason as it was in the day of Noah when men were destroyed off the face of the earth.

In explaining the destruction of Jerusalem to Ezekiel, the Lord allowed him to see a vision of the idolatry and other abominations to be seen in Jerusalem. Here is a portion of what He said: “Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? For they have filled the land with violence” (Ezek. 8:17). The same prophet foretold the destruction of Tyre. Among other things he said, “By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned” (Ezek. 28:16). Were they worse than many cities in America where one cannot walk the streets in safety, and where so many businesses are robbed at gunpoint daily? Does the same God rule in the kingdoms of men (Dan. 4:17, 25, 32; 5:21)? What are the prospects for God’s hands of vengeance upon our land? Is not the whole earth being shaken by guerrilla warfare, assassinations, kidnappings, and hijackings?

Sins of violence are not new, and I am no prophet or the son of a prophet, but I am convinced that there is the strong arm of vengeance ready for a land that will bring up such sinners from innocent childhood. I am afraid for the future of our nation. I plead for more people to make zealous effort to know, practice, and teach the word of God. The rebuilding of America must start in the home, and the truth should go to every creature. More laborers are desperately needed for this spiritual vineyard. In the days when the Old Testament prophets lived and reported on some of the Lord’s activities, they told of His use of pestilence (disease), famine, and the sword (Jer. 24: 10; 42:17; 44:13). The Lord can handle the population explosion without any trouble. We all know the fate of Jerusalem for its rejection of the Christ, who was the gift of God’s love.

Read the last half of the first chapter of the book of Romans Pare it with your observations in this country as you read or listen to the daily news reports. The pagan world at the time of the apostles knew and condoned the deeds of people who were guilty of the sins which are today said to be normal sexual behavior. I refer to homosexuals, lesbians, and other sex perverts. They also knew of “envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful.” Sinners of this nature are not to be without punishment. It is in order to preach sermons or to write the truth to any one who will listen or read about any one of these sins. God has spoken on violence and on the other grievous sins mentioned here. He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit has revealed of the mind of God.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 1, pp. 1, 25
January 3, 1985

By Luther W. Martin

The words used in the title of this article, were first used in reference to the popular Greek Text of the Bible, in Elzevir’s second edition, published in 1633. In the preface to that edition, the Latin words “Textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum ” were used, meaning “The text presently possessed (is) by all received. ” Thus it became known as the “Received Text,” or “The text received or accepted by all.”

The Greek Text of Stephanus, 1550, was essentially the same as the one published by Elzevir, in the century following. This basic text of the Bible was also the basis for the Latin Vulgate as translated by Jerome, just before 400 A.D. It continued to be the basis for the Vulgate down through the Douay-Rheims Translation of 1582 and 1609 A.D., although the Vulgate was woefully abused and mis-handled by ignorant churchmen during its many editions.

The first of the English versions of the New Testament was completed by John Wycliffe in the year 1380. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, and contained a number of defects. Nevertheless, it was the beginning which provided the people of England with access to the Word of God in their own tongue.

The next English Translation was that of William Tyndale. Even though Tyndale knew that the Catholic Council of Constance had Wycliffe’s bones removed from his grave, burned them and scattered his ashes, seeking vengeance against Wycliffe for his having translated the Bible into English, this did not discourage Tyndale from resolving to work toward the same goal . . . that of making it possible for the English plough-boy to become more familiar with the Holy Scriptures than were those of the Roman priesthood.

Tyndale studied at Cambridge University, at the time that the noted Erasmus was Professor of Greek. In fact, it was while Tyndale was at Cambridge, that Erasmus published his Greek Testament in 1516. Some nine years later, Tyndale published his first English New Testament, with a second, slightly revised edition in 1534. Tyndale’s work was based upon the received text, of the Greek, including the Latin text of Erasmus and the German Translation by Martin Luther, that had just been published in 1522. It has been said that Tyndale’s choice of English words set the standard and pattern, that was not only followed by later translators, but that his work with the New Testament established expressions in the English Language, that became household expressions throughout England. It has been stated that 80 percent of the words of Tyndale were used in the 1881 English Revised Version.

Meanwhile, the Great Bible was published in 1539-40, based upon the commonly received text. So was the Geneva Bible of 1560-62. So was the Bishops’ Bible of 1568-1602. So was the King James Version of 1611.

Gradually A Few Scholars Question The Textus Receptus

Although the Greek Text of Stephanus (1550) was followed in England, and the text by Elzevir was followed on the European Continent, there were scholars who ultimately compared more and more Greek manuscripts of the New Testament as they were discovered.

Brian Walton, edited a Polyglott Bible, in Greek, Persian, Ethiopic, Latin and Syriac. The Greek text was that of Stephanus. This fivelanguage Bible was published in 1657.

A John Fell, who later became Bishop of Oxford, published a work in which he compared approximately 100 different manuscripts, in 1675.

Dr. John Mill published an edition of Stephanus’ Text in 1707, and added to it, the variations found in seventyeight different manuscripts.

An L. Kuster of Rotterdam modified Mill’s work, and added the comparison of some twelve more manuscripts. This was in 1710.

J.A. Bengel, the author of Bengel’s Gnomon, in 1734 published a New Testament at Tubingen, Germany, in which he collated a number of variations in readings in the New Testament.

Although there were others, the more impressive works were those of Griesbach (1805), Lachmann (1842-50), Tischendorf (1865-1872), Tregelles (1857-1872), Alford (1862-1871), and Wordsworth (1870).

Westcott and Hort

The two scholars who accomplished the most in erasing the influence of the Textus Receptus, were Brooke Foss Westcott, and Fenton John Anthony Hort. Hort spearheaded the effort by announcing in 1851 that he considered the Textus Receptus “vile” and “villainous,” yet admitted in the same writing that he had read “so little Greek Testament.” He also told a friend that he and Westcott would have a new Greek Testament issued in a little more than a year. That was in 1853 . . . but they did not publish their new text until some twenty-eight years had elapsed.

Several of the textual critics mentioned above, before the time of Westcott and Hort, had imagined that “families” of manuscripts existed. One scholar started by listing only two or three families of manuscripts, that appeared to have some similarities of wording, where variations did occur. Another scholar would list four, five or six families of manuscripts. One writer would use a set of names for his different “families” as he assumed them to be. Another writer would use a different set of terms to describe his “families.” As a result, much confusion prevailed among the scholars who endeavored to determine just which manuscript(s) were the older, the purer, or the least adulterated.

Hort came on the scene, a young man of twenty-three years, when he made his brash statement in which he demonstrated his prejudice against the Textus Receptus. He was no doubt greatly influenced by Tischendorf’s discovery, of the Codex Sinaiticus in 1844. Also by this time, the Roman Catholic Church was allowing scholars to study the Codex Vaticanus, which had previously been denied to non-Catholic scholars.

It has been surmised that both of these manuscripts may have been among the fifty manuscripts that Emperor Constantine ordered to be made during his reign as Emperor of Rome. He ruled Rome when Christianity was decreed by him to be the official religion of the Roman Empire. He also became a convert to the Christian religion while Emperor of Rome. He was the official (political) who summoned together the bishops of the church, to form what was termed the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea. These two manuscripts show signs of having been “worked on” by the same copyist. So it is quite likely that they came from one single source . . . . while the Textus Receptus was the product of many harmonizing manuscripts. But Westcott and Hort concluded that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were older and far superior in purity, nearer to the original New Testament writings . . . so they rejected the Textus Receptus, totally, and cast their lot with these two writings that they concluded to be the better.

But in order to reach this conclusion, Westcott and Hort had to make some bold assumptions, as to what had occurred in the early centuries, to justify their rejection of the many manuscripts that tended to agree and harmonize (Textus Receptus), and yet have enough logic on their side to persuade the scholars to accept the “two-manuscript theory.” This they managed to do, and for nearly a century, many students of the Greek New Testament have gone along with Westcott and Hort’s theories, with the subsequent turning away from the Textus Receptus. But during this one hundred years, numerous papyri have been found that have disproven the W-H theories. These papyri, in many instances have shown the Textus Receptus (commonly termed the Byzantine Text) to be the more harmonious with some manuscripts that are also older, and thus nearer in point of time, to the Apostolic Autographs of the New Testament.

Manuscript Comparison Chart

PAPYRUS	(ALEPH) SINAITICUS	(B) VATICANUS	TEXTUS RECEPTUS
p 45 agrees with	19 times	24 times	32 times
p 66 agrees with	14 times	29 times	33 times
p 75 agrees with	9 times	33 times	29 times
p 45, 66, 75 agrees with	4 times	18 times	20 times
p 45, 66 agrees with	7 times	3 times	8 times

(The above chart data, taken from A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text of the Gospel & Acts; part two 1949-1969, by A.F.K. Klijn.)

Papyrus (p45) contains excerpts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts. It is presently in the Chester Beatty Museum, Dublin, Ireland.

Papyrus (p66) contains excerpts from the Gospel of John. It is presently located at Cologne/Geneve, in the Bibliotheque Bodmer.

Papyrus (p75) contains excerpts of Luke and John. It is presently located at Cologne/Geneve, in the Bibliotheque Bodmer.

Note, please, that these lately discovered manuscript fragments, agree more frequently with the Textus Receptus, than they do with Westcott and Hort’s favored Aleph and B. p45 is thought to date from the 3rd century. p66 is dated circa 200 A.D. And, p75 is dated from the beginning of the 3rd century.

Conclusion

K.W. Clark has written in Today’s Problems with the Critical Text of the New Testament.

The textual history history that the WestcottHort text represents is no longer tenable in the light of newer discoveries and fuller textual analysis.

Wilbur N. Pickering has written in The Identity of the New Testament Text (p. 91):

And that completes our review of the W-H critical theory. It is evidently erroneous at every point. Our conclusions concerning the theory of necessity apply also to any Greek text constructed on the basis of it, as well as to those versions based upon such texts (and to commentaries based upon them).

On page 92, Mr. Pickering also wrote, “The evidence before us indicates that Hort’s history never was tenable.”

There have been so many manuscripts, or portions thereof, come to light, since the days of Westcott and Hort, that the new evidence simply totally destroys the entire Westcott and Hort theory of textual criticism.

It is my hope that students of the Bible will resume their respect and appreciation for the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 1, pp. 3, 22-23
January 3, 1985