Updated May 21, 2002 (first published March 30, 1999) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article)

The following article is written as a companion to the article "Preservation Is Missing in Standard Works on Textual Criticism" (March 30, 1999, Fundamental Baptist Information Service). (For a copy of the article, see the Way of Life site under the "Bible Version" section of the End Times Apostasy Database. http://www.wayoflife.org)

In "Preservation Is Missing in Textual Criticism," we included an extensive survey of the Bible's teaching on the preservation of Scripture. The doctrines of Biblical infallibility and preservation raise many questions that cannot be fully answered. On the final analysis, they must be accepted by faith. The following simple observations might help some that are struggling with the challenges of proponents of the modern versions (i.e., "Where was the preserved Bible before 1611," etc.):

THE PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE RECEIVED TEXT POSITION ARE NOTHING COMPARED TO THOSE OF THE CRITICAL TEXT. The first point I would make concerning the problems of biblical preservation is that the problems related to the Received Text position are nothing compared to those of the critical text. The supporters of the modern versions commonly leave their readers with the impression that to accept the Received Text as the preserved Word of God is untenable because there are different editions of the Received Text. What they rarely admit is that the differences between the editions of the Received Text are exceedingly minor compared to the differences between the Received Text and the Westcott-Hort or Alexandrian type text. Dr. Edward F. Hills, who had a Th.D. in New Testament textual criticism from Harvard, analyzed the different editions of the Received Text in his book The King James Version Defended, first published in 1956. He concluded that "the differences which distinguish the various editions of the Textus Receptus from each other are very minor. They are also very few" (p. 222). Dr. Hills reminds his readers that the Received Text position is one of "maximum certainty" versus the "maximum uncertainty" of modern textual criticism (p. 224). Precisely which edition of the Received Text should we follow? I agree with Dr. Hills' answer to this "problem":

"The texts of the several editions of the Textus Receptus were God-guided. They were set up under the leading of God's special providence. Hence the differences between them were kept down to a minimum. &Mac183; But what do we do in these few places in which the several editions of the Textus Receptus disagree with one another? Which text do we follow? The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith. Hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than any other God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval, namely, the King James Version, or, more precisely, the Greek text underlying the King James Version. This text was published in 1881 by the Cambridge University Press under the editorship of Dr. Scrivener, and there have been [many] reprints&Mac183;" (Hills, The King James Version Defended, pp. 222,223).

THE BIBLE WAS PRESERVED IN THE MIDST OF THE ENEMY'S ATTACKS. Tracing the preserved Scripture through history is difficult because of corruptions introduced into manuscripts and translations by false teachers. The New Testament warns of this (Matt. 7:15; 24:4,5,11; Acts 20:29-31; Rom. 16:17; 2 Cor. 2:17; 11:1-4,12-15; Gal. 1:6,7; 5:7,8; Col. 2:8,18; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:13; 4:3,4; Titus 1:10-11; 2 Pet. 2:1-3; 3:16; 1 John 2:18-19; 4:1; 2 John 7; Jude 4).

There were periods in church history in which the light of the Bible became dim because of the fierce attacks of the enemy, but God brought the Scripture safely through those times and guided men to preserve it and to purge out the corruptions the enemy had introduced. One of those periods was the second and third centuries, when heretics introduced doctrinal corruptions into many manuscripts. The Spirit of God led His people to reject those corruptions, though, and the pure Word of God prevailed. G.W. Anderson refers to this in his overview of the history of the Greek New Testament:

"Verses and passages which are found in the writings of Church Fathers from around 200 to 300 A.D. are missing in the Alexandrian Text manuscripts which date from around 300 to 400 A.D. In addition, these early readings are found in manuscripts in existence from 500 A.D. onwards. An example of this is Mark 16.9-20: this passage is found in the writings of Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the 2nd century, and is in almost every manuscript of Mark's Gospel from 500 A.D. onwards. It is missing in two Alexandrian manuscripts, the Sinai and the Vatican" (G.W. Anderson, What Today's Christian Needs to Know about the Greek New Testament).

THE RECORD OF BIBLE PRESERVATION IS NOT ALWAYS PLAIN. There were periods in church history in which the light of the Bible became dim because of the severity of persecution by the Roman Catholic Church. Rome destroyed the record of some entire groups of Bible-believing people, such as the Albigensians and the Waldensians. During certain eras of church history, it is therefore not possible to ascertain with certainty the type of text that was used by Bible-believing people. Therefore, the preserved Bible was not as easy to trace in past centuries as it is today. Though the Bible record is not as plain for the first thousand years of church history, it is very plain for the last several hundred years; and this plain record testifies that the Received Text is the preserved Word of God.

THE ISSUE OF BIBLE PRESERVATION IS CLOUDED BY THE EXTREME BIAS OF MODERN TEXTUAL SCHOLARS. The modern research into the transmission of the biblical text is undependable because it is tainted by extreme bias against the Received Text. Most of the scholars who analyze the historical record do so from an extremely biased position in opposition to the Received Text. Westcott and Hort, for example, called the Received Text "vile." Marvin Vincent, who published a textbook on textual criticism at the turn of the century, called the Received Text "tyrannous." Alexander Souter referred to the Received Text a "shackle" (Souter, The Text of the New Testament, 1912, p. 100). Bruce Metzger calls the TR "corrupt" and Christian people's love for it "superstitious" (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 1968, p. 106). This bias has tainted most of the serious research into ancient texts and translations that has been done in the 20th century. Late 19th-century scholars such as John Burgon and Edward Miller analyzed the historic record as diligently as any of their contemporaries who supported the Westcott-Hort critical text, but THEY found overwhelming support for the Received Text because they refused to accept the bias of rationalistic theories of textual criticism. Burgon was a first-rate textual scholar, the equal to any man alive at the time. He made several tours of European libraries, examining and collating New Testament manuscripts wherever he went. He visited the Vatican Library in 1860 to examine the Vaticanus. In 1862, he traveled to Mt. Sinai to inspect manuscripts at St. Catherine's'. He brought to light particulars on 374 Greek manuscripts that were previously unknown to scholars. His research into New Testament quotations from ancient church writings has never been equalled. The unpublished material, which resides in the British Museum, consists of 16 thick manuscript volumes containing 86,489 quotations. Burgon's research established that the Received Text was the prominent text of the early centuries. Burgon was working under the premise of faith, that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and that God has preserved it.

Since the turn of the century, though, end time apostasy has permeated the scholarly world so extensively that little progress has been made. Exceptions are Edward Hills, Wilbur Pickering, Jay Green, and a few other men who refuse to accept the "scholarly correct" theories of modern textual criticism.

BIBLE PRESERVATION DOES NOT IGNORE TRANSITIONAL PERIODS IN CHURCH HISTORY. In answering the problems of biblical preservation, it is also important to understand that there are transitional periods in church history. An example is the early history of the English Bible. When Wycliffe translated the first English Bible in the 14th century, he worked from Latin manuscripts rather than from Greek and Hebrew (though he did not slavishly follow any one official Catholic Latin vulgate). It was not until the early 16th century that the first English Bible was translated from Greek and Hebrew, and the following 90 years was a period of purification of that translation, beginning with the work of William Tyndale and ending with the work of the King James translators. Thus, the period from the 14th to the 17th centuries was a transitional period for the English Bible (and for the language itself). After that, the Bible text in English was fixed and was spread throughout the world.

IT IS THE TASK OF EACH GENERATION OF CHRISTIANS TO KEEP AND PUBLISH THE PRESERVED WORD OF GOD FOR THAT PARTICULAR GENERATION (Matt. 28:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:2; Jude 3). It was the business of 14th century Bible believers to keep and publish the preserved Word of God for the 14th century. Their job was to follow the guidance of the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18-20) and the Holy Spirit (1 John 2:20-27) in the identification of the preserved Word of God for that generation (1 John 2:20-27). It is not the task of 20th century Bible believers to identify and keep the preserved Word of God for previous centuries. Our task is to keep and publish the preserved Word of God in the 20th century. Therefore, the question, "Where was the preserved Word of God before 1611" is not a question I am forced to answer. By faith in God's promises, I know that He has preserved His Word and that is enough.

FAITH DOES NOT HAVE TO ANSWER EVERY QUESTION THE SKEPTIC CAN THROW AT IT. We believe the Trinity, though we are at a loss to explain the details of it, and those who do not believe it mock us because we cannot answer all of their questions. We believe the infallible inspiration of the Bible because it is what the Bible itself claims and is what the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles believed and taught. There are many serious questions about biblical inerrancy that we cannot answer, though. We believe the Bible canon, though we cannot describe every step whereby the canon was recognized and sealed. We have the complete Bible, and that is enough for the man who has faith in God and who believes the Bible is a supernatural book. Yet, those who refuse to accept the Bible as the Word of God mock us because we cannot answer all their questions.

Similarly, we believe that the Bible has been infallibly preserved because God has said so, though we are at a loss to explain all of the difficulties with this position. Those who reject the doctrine of preservation mock us because we cannot answer all their questions. Let them mock. We have God's promise on these things. We have an infallible Bible we can hold in our hands. They have one in theory only in the nonexistent original autographs. In my estimation, they have far more problems with that position than I do with mine. What do we care if some think we are foolish or unlearned? Was that not the charge brought against the first Christians by their proud detractors? Dear friends, believe God and do not allow any man to shake your confidence in His perfect, preserved Word.

I conclude this section with the words of the late Bruce Lackey, a Bible-believing scholar who studied the Greek New Testament every day but who never taught his students to question the Received Text or the King James Bible: "FAITH WHICH IS BASED ON A CLEAR PROMISE IS STRONGER THAN OBJECTIONS WHICH ARE RAISED BY OUR LACK OF INFORMATION. Since God has promised to preserve His Word for all generations, and since the Hebrew and Greek which is represented by the King James Version is the Bible that has been received from ancient tradition, and since God has so singularly used the truth preached from this Bible, I must follow it and reject others where they differ."

To this I say, Amen!