Which version Is The Bible? Page 82

external evidence of over 5,000 Greek MSS/mss now extant as well as the testimony of the letters of the early Church "Fathers" and the witness of the early versions. As there is no actual history of the transmission of the text, the choice between variants ultimately is reduced to conjecture and guesswork: "the editing of an eclectic text rests upon conjectures".¹ Yet incredulously, most scholars do not practice pure eclecticism. Despite all their disclaimers, they still work essentially within the W-H framework.² This may be seen in that the two most popular manual editions of the Greek N.T. in use today, Nestle-Aland²⁶ and UBS³, vary but little from the W-H text (the same is true of the recent versions, RSV etc.) - demonstrating that little "progress" has been made in textual theory since W-H.³

The result of these efforts to "restore" the readings to their pristine form has been mainly that of dismay. The project is now viewed as impossible by nearly all modern critics (though inexplicably the work continues). Typical acknowledgments to this effect by foremost textual scholars are:

"In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of von Soden, we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall."⁴

"The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well nigh impossible."⁵

"it is generally recoginzed that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered."⁶

"Great progress has been achieved in recovering an early form of text, but it may be doubted that there is evidence of one original text to be recovered."⁷

"Each one of these critical texts differ quite markedly from all of the others. This fact certainly suggests that it is very difficult, if not impossible to recover the original text of the New Testament."⁸

Thus all of these efforts over the past one hundred years have resulted in maximum uncertainty⁹ as to the original reading of the New Testament text. By stark contrast, that person who simply puts his/her faith in God's promise to PRESERVE His Word concludes that God has done so and that it is to be found in the vast majority of extant mss - and preserved in the English language in the 1611 King James translation. This person is left with maximum certainty, with peace of heart and peace of mind.

1 E.C. Cowell, "Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text", The Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed. J.P. Hyatt, (New York: Abingdon Press, 1965), p. 372.

2 Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 28.

75 Eldon J. Epp, "The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism", Journal of Biblical Literature, XCIII (1974): pp. 390-391.

3 Kirsopp Lake, Family 13, (The Ferrar Group), (Philadelphia PA: Uni. of PA. Press, 1941), p. vii.

4 Robert M. Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Harper 5& Row, 1963), p. 51.

8 Robert M. Grant, "The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch", Journal of Biblical Literature, LXVI (1947), p. 173.

6 K. W. Clark, "The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the Greek New Testament", Journal of Biblical Literature, 85:1, (March, 1966), p. 16.

7 M. M. Parvis, "The Goals of New Testament Textual Studies", Studia Evangelica 6 (1973): p. 397.

8 Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., pp. 224-225. This designation and "maximum certainty" at the end of the paragraph are insights from Dr. Hills.

continued...