THE APOSTASY OF THE ENGLISH REVISED VERSIONBy David W.

THE APOSTASY OF THE ENGLISH REVISED VERSION
By David W. Cloud

[The following is excerpted from FOR LOVE OF THE BIBLE: The Battle for the King James Version and the Received Text from 1800 to Present, copyright 1995 by D.W. Cloud, all rights reserved. This 460-page hard cover book is available from Way of Life for $29.95 + $4 S/H. Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org. Some of the chapters of this book provide indisputable testimony that the critical Greek text and the modern versions are built upon a foundation of modernism and unitarianism. Not every textual critic or modern Bible translator is a modernist, but the exceptions do not overthrow the rule. The following is excerpted from Chapter Three: "The Battle against Westcott-Hort and the English Revised Version."]

Not only were textual critics preceding Westcott-Hort tainted with rationalism, Westcott and Hort and other members of the English revision committee were as well.

Zane Hodges noted WESTCOTT AND HORT'S apostasy: "The charge of rationalism is easily substantiated for Westcott and Hort and may be demonstrated from direct statements found in their introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek. To begin with, Westcott and Hort are clearly unwilling to commit themselves to the inerrancy of the original Scriptures" (Zane C. Hodges, "Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism," Bibliotheca Sacra, January 1971).

While some Evangelicals and even some Fundamentalists have come to the defense of Westcott and Hort and have contended that they were theologically sound, these (perhaps) fail to understand the nature of Westcott-Hort's theological apostasy. Like many Neo-orthodox and Modernistic theologians, Westcott and Hort did not so much deny the doctrines of the Word of God directly; instead they undermined these doctrines with clever doubt, with subtle questioning. Dr. D.A. Waite, who has examined the writings of Westcott and Hort in great detail, testifies: "Westcott's attack on the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is not by any means a direct clash of out-and-and denial, but rather an adroit, skillful, oblique undermining of the bodily resurrection of Christ by means of a re-definition of terms" (Waite, Westcott's Denial of Bodily Resurrection, The Bible for Today, 1983, p. 8).

Dr. Waite's views on this matter are not based on a cursory look at Westcott and Hort's theology. He has examined the writings of these men probably as exhaustively as anyone speaking on the subject today. Certainly he has given much time and care to this research. As a background for his book Heresies of Westcott & Hort, Waite studied 1,291 pages of the writings of these men. Based on this research he makes the following charges (among others):

Westcott and Hort held a vague or erroneous position on inspiration, revelation, or inerrancy.
Westcott embraced the heresy of the universal Fatherhood of God.
Westcott denies that God had to be propitiated.
Westcott taught that men could be divine in some way.
Westcott espoused evolution in various ways.
Westcott had a heretical theory of man's sinfulness and depravity, believing in man's perfectibility in various ways.
Westcott and Hort failed to affirm the personality of the Devil, calling him only a power.
Westcott and Hort denied that Heaven is a place, speaking of it as a state.
Westcott believed that the redemptive efficacy of Christ's work was to be "found in his whole life" rather than in his death.
Westcott questioned the eternal preexistence of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Westcott and Hort denied the deity of Jesus Christ.
Westcott explained away some of the miracles of Christ.
Westcott and Hort denied or gave a false meaning to the literal, bodily resurrection of Christ.
Westcott and Hort had a false and heretical view of the vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

A precise, accurate description of Westcott-Hort's theological position is given by Bishop D.A. Thompson, who looked carefully into these matters: "Neither of these scholars had been evangelical and as the influence of the German neology increased they moved slowly and discreetly with the times."

For a discerning overview of the theology of Westcott and Hort, see Dr. Waite's The Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort: As Seen in Their Own Writings. Also Heresies of Westcott & Hort. Both are available from The Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108.

In his 1951 doctoral dissertation to the faculty of the Graduate School of Dallas Theological Seminary, Alfred Martin, then Vice President of Moody Bible Institute, noted the connection between apostasy and the critical text:

"At precisely the time when liberalism was carrying the field in the English churches the theory of Westcott and Hort received wide acclaim. These are not isolated facts. Recent contributions on the subject--that is, in the present century--following mainly the Westcott-Hort principles and method, have been made largely by men who deny the inspiration of the Bible" (emphasis added) (Alfred Martin, "A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory." Th.D. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1951, p. 70).

Another of the members of the English Revision committee (1870-85) was WILLIAM ROBERTSON SMITH (1846-1894). He was added to the Old Testament company after the work had begun. (W.F. Moulton, The History of the English Bible, p. 220). He "was cashiered by the Free Church of Scotland because of his advanced Modernistic doctrines" (William Aberhart, The Latest of Modern Movements, p. 9). The details of this were given by Robert Dabney in an article entitled "Refutation of Prof. W. Robertson Smith," which first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, January 1882. Some of Smith's articles appeared in the Encyclopedia Britannica on the subject of the Bible. These were filled with speculation and unbelief. He denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. He denied the accuracy of the Masoretic Hebrew Text. He threw "as much uncertainty as possible over the authorship of the Psalms." Dabney notes that Smith was a deceptive individual, as Modernists tend to be. When his first article appeared in the Britannica in 1880, charges were brought against him by the General Assembly of the Free Church. The Assembly, deciding to make a compromise with the heretic, publicly admonished Smith and received from him a pledge "not again to disturb the faith and peace of the church by such speculations." What Smith failed to mention in his solemn pledge was this: Another article of like nature was even then at the printers in preparation for publication! "It had been in the printers hands at the very time he was giving his pledge of good behavior and receiving the generous forgiveness of his judges." As a result of this, Smith was finally dismissed from the professorship at the Free Church Theological College. The fact that this heretic was given a place of honor on the revision committee speaks volumes about the spiritual destitution of the entire project.

The apostasy of Westcott and Hort and the theological carelessness of other members of the Revision Committee is further evident in their attitude toward a Christ-denying Unitarian who was invited to participate. (Roman Catholic theologian John Henry Newman was also invited to participate, but he declined.) GEORGE VANCE SMITH (1816-1902), minister of St. Saviours Gate Unitarian Chapel, York, had equal vote along with the other committee members, although he had plainly and publicly denied the deity of Jesus Christ. After he participated in a communion service with the other revisers, a letter was published in The Times (July 11, 1870) in which he proudly declared that though he had received communion, he had refused to recite the Creed since he would not compromise his "principles" as one who denied the deity of Jesus Christ. A public outcry ensued, but Westcott and Hort and some of the other revisers threatened to resign if Smith was not allowed to participate! The sordid story is given by A.G. Hobbs in his Foreword to the Centennial Edition of John Burgon's Revision Revised:

"[Smith's participation in the communion service] led to a public protest signed by `some thousands of the Clergy.' The Upper House passed a Resolution that `no person who denies the Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ ought to be invited to join either company to which was committed the Revision of the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture: and that it is further the judgment of this House that any person now on either Company should cease to act therewith.' This Resolution was also passed by the Lower House. And still they could not get this non- believer off the Committee.

"Here is a real shocker: Dean Stanley, Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Thirlwall all refused to serve if Smith were dismissed. Let us remember that the Bible teaches that those who uphold and bid a false teacher God speed are equally guilty. `For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds' (2 John 9-11). No wonder that the Deity of Christ is played down in so many passages!" (A.G. Hobbs, Foreword, The Revision Revised Centennial Edition).

Smith later gloried in the fact that many changes made in the English Revision reflected his own wicked views on Jesus Christ.

"The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: `At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,' [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read `in the name.' Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ" (Smith, Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, p. 47).

"The old reading [God in 1 Tim. 3:16] is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament. ... It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,--a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times ... to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as `God manifested in the flesh'" (Smith, Texts and Margins, p. 39).

Thus we see that this English Reviser admitted what modern version proponents today deny: that the modern Greek texts and versions weaken the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ! No man is blinder than he who WILL NOT see.

Unitarian Smith also denied the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture, the atonement, and the personality of the Holy Spirit. This was made plain in his book The Bible and Popular Theology, which appeared in 1871. This was reissued in 1901 in an enlarged fifth edition entitled The Bible and Its Theology: A Review, Comparison, and Re-statement. Consider some of the blasphemies which came from the pen of this evil man:

"... what is really meant by the term in question [the Holy Spirit], is no other than God himself ... but this fact will not justify us in saying that it is `God the Holy Spirit,' as though it were a distinct personality..." (The Bible and Its Theology, p. 215).

"[Salvation] was in no way purchased of him [God] or of his justice. It was not because his `wrath' was appeased, or satisfied by the sufferings of an innocent substitute, but because of his own essential fatherly goodness and `great love.' `It is the gift of God,' not a thing bought from him with a price, except in so far as this might be FIGURATIVELY said in reference to that death of the Messiah..." (Ibid., p. 246).

"... it is equally clear that it was not as their substitute that he died for men; not to redeem them from eternal misery; not ...
because the clouds of God's wrath had gathered thick over the human race, and required a victim, and could find that victim only in the innocent Jesus! ... The popular theory, in reality, is largely the product of dark and ignorant ages ..." (Ibid., pp. 248,253).

"It is, that the Bible manifestly offers itself to us, the people of these later times, largely as a Book of History. It never professes or claims to be more: never, in truth, makes any profession or claim at all on that point; but stands before us there, simply as a collection of writings preserving for us the remaining literature, the traditions, and the history of the Hebrews. ... It nowhere, in truth, claims inspiration, or says anything definite about it. The biblical inspiration, whatever it is or was, would seem, like the genius of Shakespeare, to be unconsciously possessed. The phrase, `Thus saith the Lord,' and its equivalents, are simply to be referred to the style of the prophet; or to be understood only as indicating his belief that what he was about to say was conformable to the Divine Will. ... It is scarcely allowable, in short, to think of inspiration as being or acting in THE DEAD WORDS OF ANY BOOK" (Ibid., pp. 269,276,277). [O Timothy Editor: Thus we see how this Bible reviser looked upon the Bible: dead words!]

"Then again, are we not, all of us who seek to be so, spiritual Sons of God?" (Ibid., p. 298).

"Jesus of Nazareth is nowhere presented to us as God, but simply as the Christ... `There is one God, the Father,' and `one Lord, Jesus Christ;' but these are not in any sense one being or one nature" (Ibid., p. 299).

When this work first appeared, this blasphemer had been working happily with the Revision committee for several months and his denial of biblical inspiration did not seem to bother most of the Revisionists. This helps us understand the spiritual condition of that Committee.

It is very significant that in the enlarged edition Smith gloried in the various changes in the Westcott-Hort text and the Revised Version which made it simpler for him to dispute the deity of Jesus Christ. This Unitarian recognized what many today blindly deny: that the modern Greek text is an attack upon the full divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Some of the passages listed by Smith as being superior in the modern texts and versions were Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 3:16; Titus 2:13; and 1 John 5:7.

[This was excerpted from FOR LOVE OF THE BIBLE: The Battle for the King James Version and the Received Text from 1800 to Present, copyright 1995 by D.W. Cloud, all rights reserved. This 460-page hardcover book is available from Way of Life for $29.95 + $4 S/H. Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org.]