is discernable in these passages a Christological-theological motivation that accounts for their having been added, while there is no clear reason that accounts for their having been omitted." Had no one on the entire committee ever heard of the Gnostics?

THE MYTH OF NEUTRALITY

The myth of neutrality and scholarly objectivity needs forever to be laid to rest. Anyone who has been inside the academic community knows that it is liberally sprinkled with bias, party lines, fads, vendettas, personal ambition, spite, and just plain meanness - quite apart from those with a hatred of the truth of personal accountability to an intelligent and moral sovereign Creator. Neutrality and objectivity should never be assumed, most especially when dealing with God's Truth - because in this area neither God nor Satan will permit neutrality. The Lord Jesus said: "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters abroad (Mat.12:30)." Thus, God Himself declares that neutrality is impossible; one is either for Him or against Him.

Christ Jesus clearly and unmistakably claims to be God. Faced with such a claim we have only two options, to accept or reject ("Agnosticism" is really a passive rejection). The Bible claims to be God's Word. Again our options are but two. It follows that when dealing with the text of Scripture, neutrality is impossible.

The Bible is clear about satanic interference in the minds of human beings, and most especially when they are considering God's Truth. II Corinthians 4:4 states plainly that the god of this age/world blinds the minds of unbelievers when they are confronted with the Gospel. The Lord Jesus said the same thing when He explained the parable of the sower: "When they hear, Satan comes immediately and takes away the word that was sown in their hearts" (Mk.4:15, Lk.8:12).

Furthermore, there is a pervasive satanic influence upon all human culture. I John 5:19 states that "the whole world lies in wickedness." The picture is clearly one of massive influence, if not control. All human culture is under pervasive satanic influence, including the culture of the academic community. Ephesians 2:2 is even more precise: "in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience." Satan actively works in the mind of anyone who rejects God's authority over him. For someone who claims to believe God's Word to accept an edition of the Bible that was prepared by unbelievers is to ignore the teaching of that Word.

Interpretation is preeminently a matter of wisdom. An unbelieving textual critic may have a reasonable acquaintance with the relevant evidence, he may have knowledge of the facts, but that by no means implies that he knows what to do with it. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Prov.9:10). Thus the unbeliever has none, at least from God's point of view. Wisdom is not the same as I.Q., knowledge or education. It is not merely the acquisition of facts. It entails knowing what to do with those facts. This comes not only from the experiences of life, but above all else - by the guiding and revelation from God. Anyone who edits or translates the text of Scripture needs to be in spiritual condition such that he can ask the Holy Spirit to illumine him in his work as well as protect his mind from the enemy.

WHY USE SUBJECTIVE CANONS?

It is clear that the four canons mentioned above depend heavily upon the subjective judgment of the critic. But why use such canons? Why not follow the mss evidence and faith in God's promises?

It is commonly argued that the surviving manuscripts are not representative of the textual condition in the early centuries of the Church. The official destruction of MSS by Diocletian (A.D. 300), and others, is supposed to have decimated the supply of MSS such that the transmission was totally distorted to the extent that, presumably, we cannot be sure about anything. Such an

156


continued...