Review of “True or False?” (1983) and “Which Bible?” (1987) by David Fuller

In view of the claims and the publicity attached to the two books under review it may be as well to look at the contents somewhat closely. The main aim of both books is to enhance the position and importance of the King James Version (or, as it is often called, the Authorised Version) of the Bible.

In Fuller’s books the greater part of the writing is concen­trated upon the New Testament, and then mainly upon the writings of Dr John Burgon, a scholar of repute who during his life strongly defended and proclaimed the superiority of the AV and the Textus Receptus (considered as its basis) over all other versions.

A biased view

Before looking in some detail at what is written, it might be interesting to note that, in the background and of primary importance to Fuller, to Dr Burgon and to those writing in support of the main thesis (all Trinitarians),’ there is a declared doctrinal bias for certain beliefs, and this is also taken for granted of the readers. These beliefs are:

1. The Trinity;
2. The Deity of Christ;
3. Heaven-going at death ;
4. Belief in the personal Devil.²

Dr Burgon and his supporters are angry with and opposed to anyone who does not share their beliefs in these doctrines—see, for ex­ample, their remarks on the Unitarian Dr Vance Smith³—and one writer, Terence Brown, expresses his concern thus:

“the last century has witnessed a steady drift away from the Deity of Christ and towards Unitarianism”.⁴

They are more angry because subsequent translations have altered some verses of the AV which support the doctrines mentioned.’ One has the feeling that, but for these things, the books would not have been written.

But other important facts must be men­tioned. It is over 450 years since Erasmus produced his Greek New Testament, and over 350 years since the AV was produced. Both Erasmus and the scholars who produced the AV had very limited resources. Since that time much has been discovered in manuscripts, and much produced in textual research by scholars, especially during the last fifty years. Further­more, it is one hundred years since Dr Burgon died.

Dr Burgon and his supporters have quite rightly drawn attention to the corruption of the New Testament text from the second century onwards, to the different readings, omissions and alterations found in the text of the many manuscripts, and to the views and failings of some of the early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr, Tatian, Origen, Eusebius and others.

But these things are to be expected; human errors, weaknesses, prejudices and carelessness are characteristics in all periods of writing in all places, communities and countries. An investigation into the details concerning the Textus Receptus and the AV, which Dr Burgon praises so highly, reveals similar failings. But his bitter attack on the hard work of Drs Westcott and Hort in textual research and their Greek New Testament is to be regretted.

So-called Textus Receptus

The basis for the AV is said to be the Textus Receptus, the Greek New Testament text, and this is considered to be the work of Erasmus. This Dutch theological scholar has been called “the intellectual giant of Europe”, who “gave to the Reformation the New Testament in Greek”, “the pure Greek Text”.

[The] “strains of new gladness … grew in crescendo until the whole choir of voices broke forth as Erasmus pre­sented his first Greek New Testament at the feet of Europe”.⁶

Though such high praise is placed upon Erasmus, Dr Burgon and others fail to mention a number of facts. It is true that during his travels and his contacts Erasmus must have seen and studied a number of New Testament Greek manuscripts. But his first edition of a Greek New Testament was brought out in great haste. The Roman Catholic Complutensian Polyglot, containing the New Testament in Greek, had been in preparation for about twenty years, and was awaiting the pope’s authority for publication. Erasmus knew of this, as also did others. He was in England in 1515 and a message was sent to him by Froben, a publisher in Basle, asking him to edit and produce a Greek New Testament. Erasmus consented, went to Basle and worked on the task. There he had only a few Greek manu­scripts, minuscules of late date, of the tenth and eleventh centuries. He produced his Greek New Testament hurriedly, some say taking just about six months. It was produced in March 1516, and was dedicated to Pope Leo X. Erasmus himself says : “it was tumbled out rather than issued”.

Dr Scrivener calls this first edition, in view of the hundreds of printing errors, “the most faulty book I know”.⁷ Some attempts were made at corrections in the later editions, but these did not amount to much. Again, no mention is made by Fuller to show how Erasmus was pressurised to insert the spurious verses 1 John 5:7,8, which he inserted into his third edition of 1522. Neither is it shown how the manuscript evidence for the spurious verses was produced to order.

Dr Burgon and his supporters call this Greek Text of Erasmus the Textus Receptus, and they add to this such high-sounding titles as the Received Text, the Byzantine Text, the Majority Text and the Traditional Text, as the one having widespread authority and recog­nition, and used by all.’ They fail to mention that the actual claim to this title “Textus Receptus” first appeared in the words used by the publishers, the Dutch scholar printers, the Elzevir Brothers of Leyden, who used this in their efforts to promote the sale of the second edition of the Greek New Testament in 1633. Erasmus died in 1536. In fact this edition of 1633 was composed of a combination of the work of Erasmus, of Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevirs, and was later declared to be the Greek text used by the translators of the AV printed in 1611. Regarding the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Text, scholars have shown that no such complete uniformity exists as is claimed.⁹ Byzantine-type manuscripts are many and various.

Westcott and Hort attacked

It is regrettable that Dr Burgon and his supporters, in giving an impressive list of scholars who contributed to the translation of the AV, did not mention what is revealed in the pages of introduction to the translators’ work. The fact is that they were instructed to adhere as “closely as possible to the Bishops’ Bible” of 1558, which they did, as may be seen in looking  at the wording of the Bishops’ Bible and of that in the AV.

The translators also record in their introduction to the AV that it was not their purpose “to make a new translation … but to make a good one better”, and to enhance the excellence of the existing English versions. They consulted few manuscripts, and their work was completed and their Bible printed in just over two years.

Yet Dr Burgon expresses his displeasure at the laborious and pains­taking work on many manuscripts, taking over twenty years, by Drs Westcott and Hort, and the ten further years spent by the Revision Committee before the RV of 1881 was produced. After all this Dr Burgon concludes that the committee had entirely disregarded their in­structions. He hardly notices the fact of the solemn determination of eleven of the sixteen members to produce, as far as possible, a correct Greek text of the New Testament.¹⁰

The attack on Drs Westcott and Hort and the codexes Aleph and B is sustained in both books by much repetition. The two manu­scripts Aleph and B are described in such terms as being of “evil fame”, exhibiting “deliberate falsification of the New Testament scriptures by heretics … “. Codex B is described as

“that demonstrably corrupt and most untrustworthy document”—”by far the foulest that has ever seen light”.

Or again:

“we suspect that these two MSS are indebted for their preservation solely to their ascertained evil character … land] are false witnesses”.¹¹

Not only on Drs Westcott and Hort, but also on many of the scholars of the period, does Dr Burgon vent his anger and displeasure, saying, for example: “We venture to exclaim addressing the living representatives of the school of Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf; strange that you should not perceive that you are the dupes of a fallacy which is even transparent.”¹² He states that the committee appointed for the revision of the Authorised Version had limits formally imposed by the Convocation that only necessary changes were to be made, and “the first rule was … of May 25th 1870 … to introduce as few alterations as possible into the text of the AV consistently with faithfulness”. He then angrily continues : “But instead of all this … the opportunity was eagerly snatched at by two irresponsible scholars of the Uni­versity of Cambridge … for a private venture of their own .. . [to produce] their own privately devised Revision of the Greek Text”.¹³ Dr Burgon does not mention that the majority of the committee shared the aims of Drs Westcott and Hort. But his anger is unabated as he continues : that Greek Text of theirs which I hold to be the most depraved which has ever appeared in print is … sure to produce some poisonous fruit after many days”. He is angry, too, that Dr G. Vance Smith, a Unitarian scholar, was allowed to be included among those forming the committee, and is opposed to his contributions.¹⁴

Inconsistencies

Some inconsistency is noticeable in both books. We find that the AV is lauded up to the skies : it “was the crowning fruit of a series of translations”, the crowning achievement … all others are inferior”; it is said to be Divinely guided, “showing the continuation of the pure text from the earliest time, carefully selected and kept from contaminated sources and during its long life kept from the attacks of Satan”; and it is seen as the ‘Vox Populi’, the voice of the people, the real best-seller, with its sales in millions of copies and with the Textus Receptus declared to be its basis, with ad­ditional titles as the Majority Text.¹⁵

Yet in more rational moments we have admissions such as, one cannot say that the Textus Receptus … is verbally inspired. It contains many plain and clear errors, as all schools of textual critics agree”; One need not believe in the infallibility of Erasmus, or his sanctity, or even his honesty … He undoubted­ly could have done much better than he did”; “Burgon’s position remains absolutely un­shaken. He did not contend for the acceptance of the Textus Receptus as has so often been scurrilously stated”; “The Textus Receptus admitted … will have to undergo extensive revision … It needs to be revised … “; “When all the evidence has been fully assimilated … the Textus Receptus will probably be found to need correction in between 500 and 1,000 places”¹⁶ (Westcott and Hon’s Greek Text made about 6,000 alterations”): “The reader should clearly and permanently understand that Burgon was not concerned to defend the Textus Receptus … Again and again we shall have occasion to point out … that the Textus Receptus needs correction”.” And it is also conceded that the antiquity of manuscripts Aleph and B is not disputed.¹⁹

It is a pity that Dr Burgon had no respect at all for the long, painstaking and studious hard work put in by Drs Westcott and Hort to produce their New Testament Greek Text. But it is reluctantly said of the Revision Committee that “eleven members were fully determined to act upon the principle of exact and literal translation”, which permitted them “to travel far beyond the instructions they received”.²⁰ Burgon and his supporters also fail to mention that the verses and sections which they listed as rejected by Drs Westcott and Hort mostly appear in the New Testament Greek Text of Westcott and Hort and in the RV marked in brackets.

A failed aim

With all the great claims and the many repetitions, it seems evident that Dr Burgon and his supporters, though they point to many important difficulties in manuscript and textual matters, nevertheless fail in their aim of insisting that the Textus Receptus of 1633 and the AV of 1611 are the only established and acceptable texts for the New Testament, and that all others produced since then should be rejected. Modern scholars have produced more enlightening and vital details showing the failings and the weaknesses of their case.²¹

It is interesting and helpful to note that, after many years of patient research, two main authorities—the Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Societies—are now so very close in agreement regarding the approach to pro­ducing an acceptable New Testament Greek text with a critical apparatus. This is a great achievement which should give satisfaction, confidence and pleasure to every earnest reader. Professor Z. C. Hodges and Dr J. F. Walvoord say: “the papyrus finds of the last thirty to forty years have yielded manuscripts which more or less support the kind of Greek text used in more modern translations (like the ASV or RSV)”.²²

Dr Burgon’s opinions and claims for the AV, and those of his supporters, cannot be sub­stantiated. Modern scholars have shown this, as may be seen in The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism by Professor D. A. Carson (published by Grand Rapids Inter­national Publications, Michigan), and also in Quality in Translation by Dr Eugene A. Nida (The Bible Translator Press). For another extensive examination and precise details reference may be made to Which Bible to Read by Frank Ballard (Allenson, London).

It is remarkable how severe Drs Burgon, Fuller and others are as they list the alterations Drs Westcott and Hort made to the Greek Text in their edition, yet they omit to mention other verses which have aroused widespread con­cern, such as 1 John 5:7,8; 1 Timothy 1:17, and Jude verse 25. In these and other instances scholars have shown how words which do not appear in the most ancient uncial Greek manuscripts have been inserted into later manuscripts (chiefly Latin ones). These give readings which are found in the Textus Receptus and therefore in the AV. These insertions were evidently designed to give support to the doctrine of the Trinity.

Drs Burgon and Fuller will, however, con­tinue to have many supporters because of their efforts and their desire to maintain the doc­trines for which they so strongly contend. But it should be noticed that they need unquestioning acceptance of the Textus Receptus and the AV by their followers, and they ignore and reject those details that many scholars have revealed and which other ancient manuscripts have shown since 1633.