Grant, “The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. it is generally recognized that THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE BIBLE CANNOT BE RECOVERED” (R.M. “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” (Kirsopp Lake, Family 13, The Ferrar Group, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1941, p. Conybeare, History of New Testament Criticism, 1910, p.

“The ultimate text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, IS FOR EVER IRRECOVERABLE” (F.C. “ than ever, and PERHAPS FINALLY, UNSETTLED” (Rendel Harris, Side Lights on New Testament Research, 1908, p. Note the following statements by prominent textual critics of the last 100 years testifying to the gross uncertainty produced by modern textual criticism. The Greek Received Text has been replaced with a constantly changing so-called “eclectic” text. The Masoretic Hebrew has been challenged by the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, and other sources, so that some twenty to thirty thousand textual changes have been suggested for the Old Testament. Whereas prior to the late 19th century the vast majority of Bible-believing Christians were confident that the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Received texts were the preserved Word of God, today there is no real certainty where textual criticism has been accepted.

Modern textual criticism has resulted in uncertainty in the Biblical text. W e further reject modern textual criticism because its fruit has been increasing uncertainty and skepticism, a weakening of the authority of Scripture, and the promotion of the ecumenical movement.ġ. THE MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS: A COURSE ON BIBLE TEXTS AND VERSIONS AND A 10-FOLD DEFENSE OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE. The following is excerpted from FAITH VS.

Textual criticism