date.1 Like the Old Latin, this ancient version also held its own against the Latin Vulgate of Jerome until the tongue in which it was written ceased to exist.2
The apostle John's long life enabled him to bear apostolic witness to the true text of Scripture and canon until almost the year 100 at which time his hand-trained associates carried forward that same witness. Upon returning from his banishment to the isle of Patmos, John completed the sacred Canon by composing his Gospel, epistles and Apocalypse. Then combining these with the writings of the other Evangelists, he sanctioned them all with apostolic authority.3
This Traditional Text arose from the place of obscurity and humiliation forced on it by Origen's version in the hands of Eusebius and Constantine, to become the Received Text of Greek Christianity.4 With the Greek East completely shut off from the Latin West for 1,000 years, the noble Waldenses of northern Italy still possessed the Received Text in Latin form. They became one of the main instruments in the hands of the Holy Spirit through which He kept the many promises to preserve the Word of God.
In view of all the preceding, the Roman Church's claim that she gave the Bible to the world is seen as false. What she gave was an impure text, a text with thousands of alterations so as to make way for her unscriptural doctrines. At the same time, she heaped upon those who possessed the veritable Word of God long centuries of pitiless, relentless, merciless, bloodthirsty persecution.
IS NATURALISTIC TEXT CRITICISM SCIENTIFIC?
We close this rebuttal with the question: in view of all the foregoing, is naturalistic textual criticism actually scientific? Having previously been employed as a paleontologist and geophysicist over a 14 year career, this author submits that his years of study and training in the scientific method as well as its accompanying discipline in logic and mathematics qualifies him to address this question somewhat more dispassionately than the textual critics themselves. Like Westcott and Hort, whose views on the matter have already been cited, naturalistic critics uniformly proclaim that their methods follow scientific standards. They believe that they have been scientific largely because they have taken a naturalistic view and approach to the New Testament Text, priding themselves on having treated it just as they would the text of any other ancient book. As Hort has put it:5
"... we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety, and antiquity."
Before (by Lachmann, Semler, Griesbach, etc.) and since the publication of these words, text critics have taken this position as representing a "neutral outlook" in approaching the problem - but they are tragically mistaken; such is not a "neutral" approach at all - it is pagan. Having studied many years over the writings of representatives of both sides of this issue, this author must agree with the summary statement by the conservative Christian text critic, the late Dr. Edward Freer Hills:
1 Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 174.
2 Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, op. cit., p. 27.
3 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, op. cit., Book III, ch. 24; also cited by: Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, op. cit., pp. 112-113.
4 Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, op. cit., pp. 41-42.
5 Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 277.
108
continued...