What is it?
Well, the “textual” part is the study of the old manuscripts that make up our bible. The Criticism part is the practice of those that study these old manuscripts to discern which are best. And then make decisions based on these conclusions about what belongs in your bible. The problem is that these men are not theologians or Bible scholars. They are more like archeologists. But instead of uncovering things that add knowledge to our history they are obsessed with removing things from the bible.
Go see if your bible has Matthew 18:11. If you do not use a KJV or NKJV then it is very likely that you do not have that verse. Or if it is there, then there will be a note that says something like “oldest and best MSS do not contain verse 11”. This is textual criticism. Is it a bad thing? We all want an accurate English Bible. Well, wait a minute. What does Mt 18:11 say? Maybe it is heresy and shouldn’t be in the bible. “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” hmmm doesn’t seem bad, I wonder if it says that anywhere else in the bible? Well what do you know Luke 19:10 “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” And that one is in all the bibles (so far). So why take it out of Matthew if we know Jesus said it? Why indeed. Are you beginning to wonder if they have taken out anything else? Maybe something important that is not repeated elsewhere? We will look at two passages a little later but first, let’s look at “oldest”.
By the way, if you were upset that Matthew 18:11 isn’t in your bible then don’t go looking for Matthew 17:21, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44 & 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, John 5:3–4, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:6–8, Acts 28:29, or Romans 16:24. You probably will not find them either. And that is just whole verses. There are hundreds of partial verses no longer included in modern bibles. Don’t take my word for it go look up a few.
OLDEST
The statement that the “oldest manuscripts do not have this verse” is very misleading. What they are not telling you is that we have NONE of the oldest manuscripts. I mean we have none of the originals. They call the originals “autographs” and they do not exist, anymore. As far as we know, we do not have a single fragment of any original writings of Paul or John or Peter or any of the new testament authors. Why? Because they wear out. They were just paper (papyrus) and after being copied hundreds and hundreds of times rolled and unrolled thousands of times they just disintegrated. But when the textual critics say “oldest” they mean “the oldest we currently have today”. Even in modern knowledge, many MSS we know existed a few hundred years ago can no longer be located. That should not concern us, for three very good reasons:
- Hundreds and hundreds of copies. When someone’s copy was wearing out they made another copy of it, to preserve it. Pretty smart huh. Yes, the church fathers, guided by the Holy Spirit faithfully preserved the word of God for us.
- The people copying the originals were sincere and took their task seriously. Contrary to the opinion or theory of the modern Textual Critics they didn’t add things willy nilly. The wrote about the scriptures with great reverence and when scholars found the full book of Isaiah in the dead sea scrolls it was over 500 years older than our next known copy and do you know how much had been added? 0. Yep, not a single word. There were some spelling variants and that was it.
- God has preserved his word. We serve a god not only capable of communicating with his creatures but is also capable of preserving the words he has delivered. I trust the bible we have had from the beginning. From the earliest writings of the church fathers, they quoted the bible we still have today. That is the collection of greek manuscripts called the Textus Receptus. I know that this is a great oversimplification, but I my point is valid. None of the reductions of the bible are supported by the church fathers. I will give you a good example below. These critics I think tend to dismiss the ability for God to preserve and for man to be obedient in copying.
The problem with all this is the presuppositions that underly modern textual criticism (I am going to use MTC from now on cause I don’t want to type that over and over, thanks). MTC have developed theories just like secular scientists but just like any theory, they contain presuppositions (things that they assume to be true before they even start).
- Oldest is best – This is not always true. A manuscript may be old because it did not get used and worn out. And the MTCs are not consistent with this premise. Choosing to leave in Jude and the Pericope Adulterae (I will explain what that is later) which are in none of the older manuscripts. When you think that the most used documents would have worn out the quickest then the oldest manuscripts would actually be the LEAST reliable.
- Worst is best – This one kills me but they will actually say that a manuscript with mistakes in it has more validity than a manuscript that is more polished. Because they assume the scribes polished and fixed up the scriptures over time. Scribers were religious men that took their duty very seriously, but the scholars of the MTCs are not and are assuming that the scribes are secularly minded. So… WORST is WORST.
- Scribes add things – Again any manuscript that is shorter is considered to be better than those that are longer. Assuming that bible scholars would play fast and loose with incurring the wrath of God for adding things to the bible to “help it out”. The historical record actually supports the idea that scribes were incredibly accurate and faithful to what they were copying even if there were mistakes in the manuscript. It is what it is!
The Achilles Heel of Modern Textual Criticism
Do this yourself. Any of us laymen can do this now, in the modern age we have access to books that were too expensive for a layman to access in the past. So, take some passage that is in dispute. I am going to use 1 John 5:7. Almost all MTC will say that this passage does not belong in the bible. It was most certainly added. They are all but unified on this point. Go on youtube and search for 1 John 5:7 or search for “johannine comma” which is what it’s called. They will all give you very good reasons why the passages was not in the original by John. They will tell you that “this passage is absent from all the ancient manuscripts and is only present “in four late medieval manuscripts” (medieval is 1600s). You will see and hear that phrase over and over again. And as far as I know, it is true. Although it is in the Latin manuscripts from the 5th century. The implication then is that a Catholic monk added it. But here is what they don’t tell you: The oldest Greek manuscript we have is from the 7th century. (To be completely transparent we do have a fragment of 1 John from 3rd century but that fragment is only 6 verses from chapter 4). So why do they always omit these facts? I honestly don’t know. Maybe because it does not support their assumptions?
Is all this too technical for you? Well, it is for me. And it is unnecessary. I will simply surrender to those that know more than me on the subject and say fine. The only greek texts we have do not have this verse in full. But does that mean that it was not in the original and why was it included in the Latin versions and Greek Manuscripts that made up the Textus Receptus (the group of greek documents that were used for the King James and all other bibles throughout the world for hundreds of years)? Why is it there? How can we know if it is supposed to be there?
WE CAN. Everything is online now and you can check it out for yourself. The early church fathers wrote letters to each other and to the churches they were ministering to. We have those letters. And guess what pastors do when they write letters? They quote scripture. A lot. And it just so happens that an early church father, Cyprian in 250 AD, quoted 1 John 5:7 in a way that cannot refer to any other passage in the bible. “it is written of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.”
WOW!
Did you know that the only place in the bible where the phrase appears “and these three are one” is in 1 John 5:7? Don’t take my word for any of this. I am disputing very smart men. Men with way more degrees and way more time dedicated to this subject than I have. Please go look. Check your bible for that phrase. Do a google search. Here is a link to Cyprian’s writing. It’s at the bottom of the page on the left. So whatever copies of the manuscripts Cyprian had in the 200s did have the “johannine comma”. You can do the same thing for many of these so-called disputed texts. Is this the only place that the passage appears in the church fathers?
The Lord says, “I and the Father are one; ” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one” -Treatise I:6, Cyprian 250AD
Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, one from the other, which “three are one”, not one person, as it is said, “I and my Father are One.” -Against Praxeas, Tertullian 240ADThe other Spirit comes from the Son just as the other Son comes from the Father. So the Spirit is the third as the Son is the second person. But the sum is one, for “the three are one.” -Contra Arianos XXVII, Phoebadius 359 AD
As John says, “There are three that give testimony in earth: the water, the flesh and the blood; and these three are one and there are three that give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit; and these three are one” -Liber Apologeticus Priscillian of Avila 380 AD
Therefore God supreme and true, with His Word and Holy Spirit “which three are one”, one God omnipotent, creator and maker of every soul and of every body -City of God, Augustine 430 AD
“Also to the Parthians, ‘There are three’, He says, ‘that bear record in earth, the water, the blood and the flesh, and the three are in us. And there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.”-Contra Varimadum, Vigilius Tapsensis 450 AD
Therefore, although in the above examples the Scriptures are silent regarding the names of the persons, yet this union of the divine name by all in this is to be demonstrated to you; also as in this example of the truth, in which the names of the persons are clearly evident, and the united divine names declared closed, the Evangelist John says in his Epistle: ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Spirit, and they are one in the Lord Jesus Christ”. -De Trinitate Libri Duodecim Book I,Vigilius Tapsensis 480 AD
And in order to show with clearer light that the unity of divinity is with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, John the evangelist bears record. For which it is said: “There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one” -Historia persecutionis Africanae Provinciae, Victor Vitensis 485 AD
Here you have briefly that another is the Father, another is the Son, another is the Holy Spirit: different in person, not different in nature: and for this reason ‘I’, he says, ‘and the Father are one.’ We teach that ‘One’ refers to nature, and ‘We are’ refers to the persons. Likewise regarding it: ‘There are three’, he says, who are said to testify in heaven, ‘the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.’ -Ad Felicem Notarium De Trinitate Liber Unus, Fulgentius Ruspensis 527 AD
This matter the three mysteries testify in earth: ‘the water, the blood, and the spirit’, which are fulfilled as we read in the Passion of the Lord: but in heaven ‘the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one God. -Complexiones In Epistollis Apostolorum, Cassiodorus of Italy 580 AD
Oh but what about the alternative reading? How many church fathers quote from the passage and leave out the “three are one” phrase? NONE!
Another favorite of the MTC is John 7:53–8:11 which yes has a fancy name too: “Pericope Adulterae”. Can we trace it back to the early church fathers? Yes. Most modern bibles will leave out the “johannine comma” but will keep the “Pericope Adulterae” (usually with notes that say it was not in the best and oldest mss) and there is very little explanation for the decision. I say leave them both alone and trust God. He has preserved his word and the evidence supports that fact.
I am NOT a KJV onliest. And in fact, I use the NKJV personally because it is easier to read. I really like how the NASB reads but it does make subjective claims in the footnotes and leaves out the “johannine comma”. I am not against modern translations and in fact I think they are a must. We must give out children a bible that is accurate but that they CAN read. But we should insist on a bible that has all the verses and words. We should not compromise or settle for less than the whole word of God.
English Bibles that include all the verses and avoid MTC:
New King James (NKJV)
KJV2000
KJVER
MKJV
English Majority Text Version
Byzantine Majority New Testament
Third Millennium Bible
Youngs Literal Translation
WEB
Biblemax EMTV
BBE
MT Greek NT Interlinear Bible
old bibles that had all the verses:
King James Bible
Tyndale
Coverdale
Bishops
Matthews
The Great Bible
Geneva
Douay Rheims
Wycliffe
West Saxon
by 