V. HOW HORT CONTROLLED AND SEDUCED THE 1881 COMMITTEE
HORT "INVENTS" A HISTORY OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT
Remember that Westcott and Hort joined this revision committee having worked secretly for over twenty years preparing their own private New Testament. Recall that they violated the charge which the church laid upon them regarding the kind of changes that were to be made in the revision. The church said to make only "minor" alterations, such as, capital letters, punctuation, and the removal of archaic words. But Westcott and Hort seduced the committee into a covenant of secrecy, meeting and working in this clandestine fashion for eleven years. Now contrast that with the openness of the King James Committee. The entire nation of England knew what was forthcoming having been kept informed by the translators as the work progressed. There were no surprises in 1611. But in 1881, suddenly there appeared a radically different Greek text.
Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener - a very learned man of God and the most capable, eminent textual critic of his day with regard to the N.T. manuscripts as well as the history of the Text - served on the committee and tried to stem the tide, but he was systematically out voted.1 Hort was such a tremendous advocate that he convinced the majority of the members to accept his and Westcott's translation almost to the exclusion of any other opinion. Few of the other translators were familiar with the techniques and nuances of textual criticism. Point by point they fell under Hort's persuasive spell, a talent of near legendary proportion which Hort is reported by many to have possessed2. It was said that he would have made an unbeatable lawyer.
Time and again, Hort's side would out vote Scrivener. When Scrivener realized what was happening, he should have broken the foolish vow of secrecy and exposed the entire affair to the world. Thus he failed the Lord and the Church in this whole matter. Bishop Wilberforce, originally appointed to chair the committee, saw what was happening at the very onset. Unable to bear the situation, he systematically absented himself after the first meeting and refused to take part in the proceedings.3 Yet, inconceivably, he also remained silent as to what he had seen and heard during the remaining three years of his life.
Nearly every Bible written in English since 1881 has used as its basic New Testament text the Westcott-Hort edition (Origen's privately "edited" N.T.). This text has passed down to us via Eusebius through the copies which he prepared for Constantine. The two remaining products of this "recension" are known today as codices Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph.
Hort's problem was how to overthrow the Textus Receptus and supplant it with Codex Vaticanus B, thereby elevating that manuscript above the sum total of all other extant manuscripts - even though 90-95% agreed in text with the Textus Receptus and yet were different from B. To achieve this goal he had to produce a convincing history of the text in order to explain why essentially only one type of text had survived and been preserved in all the later manuscripts from the fourth and fifth centuries on. Then he had to show and explain how this "historical account" justified the rejection of the dominant text, the Textus Receptus.
GENEALOGICAL METHOD Hort's first step in solving the problem was to take the position that the New Testament could be treated as any other book. In other words, that it was not of a supernatural origin. This allowed the use of the genealogical (family tree) method, developed by the students of the classics, to be applied to the Greek manuscripts.4 Such a technique is only applicable if there has been no deliberate altering of the text. However, as already cited, Second Corinthians 2:17 tells us that the text was being altered even as far back as the time of Paul. One of the great enemies of God, Marcion the gnostic (fl. c.140 A.D.) deliberately altered, shortened and removed from the mss to which he had access any Scripture which taught the deity of Christ.How did Hort deal with the problem of potential text tampering? He won the day by simply authoritatively proclaiming that the text showed "no signs of deliberate falsification ... for dogmatic (theological) purposes".5 Amazingly, this brash misstatement of fact went practically unchallenged.
Let us examine how the genealogical method worked.6 Westcott and Hort applied this technique in order to get to the place where the witness of one manuscript could outweigh that of many. Beginning with the apostles' autographs, i.e., the original copies of the New Testament written by the apostles, let us suppose that two copies were produced from these originals and identified as "Copy 1" and "Copy 2". If seven copies were made from Copy 2, they would represent the third generation (the apostles' autographs being the first generation, Copies 1 and 2, the second).
GENEALOGY:
 | If c - 2 is lost, then c - 1 outweighs 1 - 7. True, but only if no malice has entered |
Now if Copy 2 were lost, Copy 1 would "outweigh" the combined testimony of the seven copies which are of the third generation because copy 1 was of the second generation, hence nearer to the original reading. That would be true if malice had not entered into the history of MS transmission, but once malice has entered, we cannot know if someone has deliberately falsified Copy 1. Thus, one may no longer assert that Copy 1 outweighs the seven copies of the third generation. This method was used to justify the rejection of the majority text. It was W-H's most invaluable tool. Its application enabled them to overthrow the testimony of nearly 95% of the manuscripts.
Hort used this tool to reduce the manuscripts into four families (voices or witnesses). These four families or voices Hort assigned the designations "Neutral" (consisting primarily of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus A), "Alexandrian", "Western" (or Roman) and "Syrian".7 He borrowed the idea from Griesbach (1745-1812) who had previously worked along similar lines. Johann Jakob Griesbach was a disciple of J.S. Semler (1725-1791).8 Both Semler and Griesbach differed from Hort, concluding that there were only three families.
As W/H read through the manuscripts, they would determine (often quite subjectively) that a given ms read like the ones at Alexandria, Rome, or those at Antioch (which are referred to as Syrian or Byzantine) whereas others they deemed purely neutral (because they supposedly did not embellish or "detract" concerning Jesus, i.e., Vaticanus or Sinaiticus). Reducing the manuscripts into four families enabled them to lump large masses of the extant manuscripts into only one voice or one witness. Next, Hort set about to prove that the Syrian family was an inferior witness, even inconsequential. How did he accomplish that goal - how did he "prove" that all the Syrian manuscripts were unimportant?
CONFLATION9 Hort did so by his second contrivance - his conflation theory. Once a manuscript had been assigned to a family (or text type) on the basis of characteristic variants (readings) which were shared in common, any manuscript which exhibited readings of another family was declared to be "a mixture". "Conflation" was supposed to be a special mixture - not merely the result of simple substitutions of the reading of one document for another - but combinations of both readings in order to form a composite whole.10 Thus the conflate readings would always be longer. Logic demanded that a text with a conflate reading had to be younger than the text which contained the various components of the conflate reading. In other words, you had to have had older pre-existing texts from which to make the combination reading - and if they were older, they were judged to be more faithful to the original writing.
Hort then offered eight examples of conflation where, by his interpretation, the Syrian text had combined the Neutral and Western readings. Modern textual critics reject Hort's "Neutral" family; hence they only recognize three voices, saying that the Neutral and Alexandrian are the same. Thus to the Modern, the Syrian text is not pure but a combination of the Alexandrian and Western readings. The entire conflate theory is substantiated by only eight readings taken from just two books of the twenty-seven in the New Testament! This conflate theory has been proven false about fifteen times in the past. The problem is that all the books proving it false are no longer in print, it having been believed that the fallacious theory had once and for all been laid to rest. The eight passages offered as conflations are Mark 6:33, 8:26, 9:38, 9:49 and Luke 9:10, 11:54, 12:18 and 24:53. These pitiful few were all that they could offer to prove their theory, yet there are 7,957 verses in the New Testament! In other words, they could only detect eight verses out of almost 8,000 as proof to support their theory! Actually the entire concept of putting the manuscripts into different families is artificial and synthetic.
It was essential in demonstrating the Syrian text to be a younger conflation that no inversions be found - that is, where either the Neutral or Western text contained a conflation of the other plus a Syrian reading. If inversions existed, one would be unable to tell which reading was the original. How did they so demonstrate? It was done by merely stating dogmatically that no inversions existed.11 These men had prepared for so long and delivered their conclusions and conjectures with such vigor and authority, that their views were accepted by most without reservation or challenge. Yet little actual documentation was presented to support the theory.
THE LETTERS OF THE "FATHERS" - EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL EVIDENCE12
Next Westcott and Hort devised two criteria of internal evidence as additional supports for their theory. They called one such prop "intrinsic probability" and the other "transcriptual probability".13
Intrinsic probability was author oriented. In other words, which readings make the best sense, fit the context best? What reading was that which the New Testament writer most probably would have written? The extremely subjective nature of such a technique is obvious even to the non-textual critic for this attributes ability to the critic's intellect beyond that which is credible!
Transcriptual probability was scribe or copyist oriented. Which readings, out of two or more probabilities, would most probably account for the origin of the other readings in successive stages of copying? This, of course, was based on the genealogical presumption (the family tree of mss) and held that no malice had taken place - aside from inadvertent mistakes.
However, these two internal evidences, transcriptual and intrinsic probabilities, often cancel each other due to their highly subjective natures.14 The mind of the critic thus becomes the final judge.15
Having already declared that any deliberate changes were not done for doctrinal purposes, the question arises as to how Westcott and Hort knew this. Aside from inadvertent copying mistakes, the presumed deliberate changes gave rise to two textual canons.16
The first canon was "the shorter reading is preferred". This was based on an assumed propensity of scribes to add to the text. However, A.C. Clarke, Professor of Latin at Oxford, showed in a study of classical text that scribes were most prone to accidentally omit rather than add (Pickering p. 80). Once conflation had been accepted as factual, this canon became necessary and natural in order to disallow the longer, fuller Syrian (TR) readings.
The second canon was that "the harder reading is to be preferred." Thus, if there existed five or six variant readings of a text, the harder reading was presumed to be the correct one. This was based on the assumed propensity of the scribes to simplify a difficult text. But such is highly conjectural! Where is the proof? None was ever offered. Hort then declared the Syrian text to be longer and more simple, thus eliminating that text from consideration - thereby winning the day!
Albeit, Hort's problem was not yet totally solved. He had to explain how this Syrian (Byzantine - Textus Receptus) text came into being in the first place, and then explain how it came to dominate the field from the fifth century unto the present. Why did this so-called "inferior" text totally dominate in number such that nearly all of the extant Greek mss, about 95%, contain the same text?
THE "EARLY REVISION"17 Hort's solution was an organized ecclesiastical revision performed by editors and not merely by scribes.18 In other words, Hort proposed that in the early church of the third and fourth century, the Alexandrian, Neutral, and Western translations were competing with each other for acceptance. Hort promulgated the theory that an official text had been created by the church with ecclesiastical backing for the purpose of resolving the conflict, it having been completed by the middle of the fourth century (c.350 A.D.).
Westcott and Hort theorized that this text was a deliberate creation by scholarly Christians for the purpose of producing a text in which the readings reflected a compromise to end the turmoil over which of the three competing texts should be accepted as authoritative. They proposed that the Traditional Text was the product of an "official revision" (or "recension") of the New Testament which supposedly took place at Antioch in two stages between 250 and 350 A.D.19 Thus their theory was that the T.T. had ecclesiastical backing for the purpose of constructing a text on which all could agree, and that it was because of this official backing that it overcame all rival texts and ultimately became the standard New Testament of the Greek Church. Hort portrayed Lucian (Bishop of Antioch, died 311 A.D.) as its probable initiator and overseer.
Thus Westcott and Hort advanced that it was the Christians themselves who deliberately altered the Biblical text! This vacuous and specious proposal borders on the preposterous for a genuine Christian would never do such a wicked thing. Being believers in the infallibility of God's Word and in God's promises to preserve that same Word, they would fear altering the Holy Text believing literally that there is a curse from God on anyone who dares to so do.20
It is amazing that Westcott and Hort could seriously suggest that it was the Christians who had deliberately altered the Scriptures instead of men like Origen or Marcion who were gnostics or docetists and either did not believe in the deity of Jesus or believed Him to have been a phantom. These were the type of men who altered the Scriptures, not the Christians, for they believed them to be true and God breathed. W-H would have us believe that orthodox Christians corrupted the New Testament text; that the text type used by the Protestant reformers was the most unreliable of all and that the true text was not restored until the nineteenth century when it was brought out of the Pope's library and rescued out of a waste basket at Mt. Sinai.21 Modern textual critics would also have us believe, themselves being so deluded and deceived, that Westcott and Hort were providentially guided to construct a theory of the true text ignoring God's special providence and treating the text of the New Testament as that of any other book. These critics envision that the true text has been lost to the church for centuries and that they themselves, as prophets, are engaged in the monumental task of restoring the original readings - Westcott and Hort having begun this undertaking by laying the foundation.
Today's scholars no longer hold to the Westcott-Hort theory in toto, yet their works always begin with Westcott and Hort's final conclusion - namely that the text represented by the majority (the TR) is of no consequence and that the true text lies mainly in the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS.
The modern critic uses what is known as the "eclectic" method of textual criticism. Eclecticism is an outgrowth of the Westcott-Hort theory of textual criticism. An eclectic editor "follows first one and then another set of witnesses in accord with what is deemed to be the author's style or the exigencies of transcriptional hazards."24 The technique involves subjective judgment, ignores the history of the text, emphasizing fewer and fewer canons of criticism. Most moderns emphasize only two.25 These are that a reading is to be preferred which best (1) suits the context, and (2) explains the origin of all others. Usually eclectics restrict the evidence to only the internal evidence of variant readings.
Today, most of Westcott and Hort's terminology has been replaced with new scholarly yet equally obscure sounding terms such as "Formal equivalence" and "Dynamic equivalence". The work of the modern textual critic/translator is largely composed of a balancing act. On one end is formal equivalence and on the other, dynamic equivalence.
At the formal equivalence end, the word in question is translated exactly according to the Greek lexicon, paying little or no attention to the quality of the sentences that is being produced. The result is nearly a word for word or literal rendition of the Greek into the other language. The problem with this is that various languages contain different sentence structure such that the resultant rendering is often out of context, out of order within the sentence, may be either nonsensical or even misleading, and lacks emotion. It is impossible to actually translate word for word from any language to another and produce an intelligible result. For example, consider a literal translation of the familiar John 3:16 passage - "For so loved the God the world that the his Son the only begotten he gave that every one the believes into him may not perish but may have life eternal". One would hardly call this result "English". Realizing this, a condition has been imposed by the proponents of formal equivalence to the effect that, though they deem a word for word translation of utmost importance, it must not be done so rigidly as to produce nonsense as in our example. This necessitates a counterbalance.
Today, dynamic equivalence is that counterbalance. At the other end of the see-saw, the translator attempts to verbalize the "message" that is being conveyed. From the Greek, he extrapolates or takes out what he thinks the author had in mind. Then, instead of translating or matching the words and wording as they are found in the grammar, words are injected that express the thought of the original author in the language the critic is using!? The NIV is notorious for doing this.26 Thus dynamic equivalence is, for all practical purposes, a paraphrase. A paraphrase means to use several words to communicate the meaning of a single word. For example, the Greek word theopneustos (qeopneusto") in II Timothy 3:16 is rendered "is given by inspiration of God."
The translator is constantly engaged in choosing between each extreme. Such is extremely subjective and invariably one side of the see-saw is strongly tipped - usually (though not always) toward the "formal" end for such is the natural inclination of the scholar. Instead, he should seek to render a verbal equivalence between the two languages before him as much as possible and still make sense, while at the same time attempting to inject the emotion and life of the original meaning.
Dr. D.A. Waite, a most qualified linguist possessing two earned doctorates with majors in Latin and Greek and over 35 years of teaching experience in varied areas which include Hebrew as well as Bible Greek, maintains that it is at this very point the King James translators exhibited supior translation technique because they avoided the dynamic equivalence method, using instead "verbal" equivalence.27 "That is, the words from the Greek or Hebrew were rendered as closely as possible into the English".28 Dr. Waite further points out that the 1611 translators were most careful in their application of formal equivalence by carefully attending to the "forms" of the original wording. If the structure in the original language could be brought into the English, they so did. That is, if the word was a verb, they brought it over as a verb; they did not - as is common practice by most modern translators - change or transform it into a noun or some other part of speech.
Thus we see that the modern designations delineated in the preceding paragraphs can be and most often are just as subjective and non-scientific as the former terms and techniques. Actually, these textual scholars arrogate unto themselves (without any kind of ecclesiastical authorization) the authority to make free choice among the variant readings as Colwell attests: "in many cases solely on the basis of intrinsic probability. The editor chooses that reading which commends itself to him as fitting the context ... The weight of the manuscript is ignored. Its place in the manuscript tradition is not considered."29 (author's emphasis)
But apart from divine revelation, what living man really possesses such insight? As Pickering has observed - how can such rules be applied when neither the identity nor the circumstances of the originator of a given variant is known?30 Moreover, to base a final decision as to the true text solely upon internal considerations is unreasonable, unacceptable, and wrong.31 It ignores the massive external evidence of over 5,000 Greek MSS/mss now extant as well as the testimony of the letters of the early Church "Fathers" and the witness of the early versions. As there is no actual history of the transmission of the text, the choice between variants ultimately is reduced to conjecture and guesswork: "the editing of an eclectic text rests upon conjectures".32 Yet incredulously, most scholars do not practice pure eclecticism. Despite all their disclaimers, they still work essentially within the W-H framework.33 This may be seen in that the two most popular manual editions of the Greek N.T. in use today, Nestle-Aland26 and UBS3, vary but little from the W-H text (the same is true of the recent versions, RSV etc.) - demonstrating that little "progress" has been made in textual theory since W-H.34
The result of these efforts to "restore" the readings to their pristine form has been mainly that of dismay. The project is now viewed as impossible by nearly all modern critics (though inexplicably the work continues). Typical acknowledgments to this effect by foremost textual scholars are:
"The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well nigh impossible."36
"it is generally recoginzed that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered."37
"Great progress has been achieved in recovering an early form of text, but it may be doubted that there is evidence of one original text to be recovered."38
"Each one of these critical texts differ quite markedly from all of the others. This fact certainly suggests that it is very difficult, if not impossible to recover the original text of the New Testament."39
1 D.O. Fuller, Which Bible?, op. cit., pp. 290-295. Also see p. 120 where Dr. Fuller quotes from Sir Robert Anderson's The Bible and Modern Criticism, 5th ed., (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1905), pp. 104-105.
2 Ibid., p. 291.
3 Ibid.
4 Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1977), p. 32.
5 Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 282.
6 E. C. Colwell, "Genealogical Method: Its Achievements and its Limitations", Journal of Biblical Literature, LXVI,
7 Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 33. The "Syrian" is also referred to as "Byzantine" - which for all practical purposes is the Textus Receptus, being its "twin brother". It is also referred to as the "Traditional" or "Majority" Text.
8 The liberal "Father of German rationalism" who originated the idea of "family classification". Johann Salomo Semler taught that the formation of the Biblical canon and text was entirely a human process, an accident of history totally apart from the guiding hand of God. He also was the author of the "accommodation theory" which set forth the principle that it is morally permissible to lie about one's beliefs when speaking publicly because the audience doesn't have the background to "understand" the full truth. Thus it was taught that the minister could assert from the pulpit that the Scriptures were verbally inspired, inerrant, etc., in order to "accommodate" his congregation who was unlearned in matters of text criticism so as not to upset or unsettle them thereby creating a "misunderstanding" and/or an imbroglio. Such is the meat upon which liberal text critics and liberal pastors chew.
9 Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., pp. 34-35.
10 Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 49.
11 Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 106.
12 Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 36.
13 Ibid.
14 E.C. Colwell, "External Evidence and New Testament Criticism", Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament, eds. B.L. Daniels and M.J. Suggs, (Salt Lake City UT: Uni. of Utah Press, 1967), p. 4.
15 John Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established, ed. Edward Miller, (London: George Bell and Sons, 1896), p. 67.
16 Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., pp. 79-85.
17 Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., pp. 178-179. Dr. Hills' concise synopsis of the W-H "solution" is most incisive and instructive.
18 Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 133.
19 Ibid., pp. 137-138.
20 Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6; Psalms 12:6-7 and Revelation 22:18-19.
21 Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 110.
22 Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 111.
23 B.B. Warfield, The Westminster Assembly And Its Work, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1931), p. 239. Dr. Hills well critiques Warfield's inconsistent thinking: The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 110.
24 Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd ed., enl., (NY: Oxford University Press, 1992; original prt. 1964), p. 175.
25 Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 23. Dr. Pickering's presentation on eclecticism is excellent (see his ch. 2). 26 Jay P. Green, Sr. (ed.), Unholy Hands on the Bible, Vol. II (Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund Pub., 1992), pp. 119-318. Dr. Green, a well known Greek and Hebrew scholar who has produced several Bible translations and a complete interlinear Bible in four volumes, has done the Church a great service in exposing the unfaithfulness of the New International Version (NIV). Not only has the NIV committee selected the corrupt critical Greek text as its New Testament base, Dr. Green reveals that the translators were not even faithful in their rendering of it as they have left around 5 percent of the Greek words altogether un-translated! "A slightly lesser percentage" of the original Hebrew O.T. has been left un-translated (p. 120). Thus tens of thousands of God breathed words are not in the NIV. Moreover, they have added over 100,000 words without so signifying to the reader by placing such words in italics as did the Authorized King James translators. All 100,000+ lack any Hebrew or Greek support whatever (pp. 120, 222-223). Both Waite and Green expose the NIV as being replete with free wheeling paraphrases rather than accurately rendering a translation. Nor are they alone in exposing this unfit translation; see also: The NIV Reconsidered by Radmacher & Hodges; (Dallas, TX: Redencion Viva Pub., 1990) and Norman Ward, Perfected or Perverted, (Grand Rapids, MI: Which Bible Society).
27 D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible, op. cit., pp. 89-132.
28 Ibid. pp. 90 and 98.
29 E.C. Colwell, "Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program", Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament, E.C. Colwell, (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill Pub., 1969), p. 154.
30 Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 24.
31 Ibid., p. 25.
32 E.C. Cowell, "Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text", The Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed. J.P. Hyatt, (New York: Abingdon Press, 1965), p. 372.
33 Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 28.
34 Eldon J. Epp, "The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism", Journal of Biblical Literature, XCIII (1974): pp. 390-391.
35 Kirsopp Lake, Family 13, (The Ferrar Group), (Philadelphia PA: Uni. of PA. Press, 1941), p. vii.
36 Robert M. Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Harper 5& Row, 1963), p. 51.
37 Robert M. Grant, "The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch", Journal of Biblical Literature, LXVI (1947), p. 173.
38 K. W. Clark, "The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the Greek New Testament", Journal of Biblical Literature, 85:1, (March, 1966), p. 16.
39 M. M. Parvis, "The Goals of New Testament Textual Studies", Studia Evangelica 6 (1973): p. 397.
40 Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., pp. 224-225. This designation and "maximum certainty" at the end of the paragraph are insights from Dr. Hills.
Chapter 1-PRESERVATION OR RESTORATION?
Chapter 2-BIBLICAL COMPARISONS DEPICTING THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM
Chapter 3-THE 1881 REVISION
Chapter 4-THE "TEXTUS RECEPTUS"
Chapter 5-THE GREEK TEXT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT
Chapter 6-HOW HORT CONTROLLED AND SEDUCED THE 1881 COMMITTEE
Chapter 7-THE HORTIAN-ECLECTIC THEORY REFUTED
Chapter 8-THE BELIEVING FRAME OF REFERENCE
Chapter 9-THE CONCLUSION OF THE MATTER
Appendix A-THE PERICOPE OF ADULTERA
Appendix B-THE JOHANNINE COMMA
Appendix C-EXAMPLES OF MODERN CRITICISM
Appendix D-HISTORY OF TEXTS TRANSMISSION
Bibliography
Index
Dr. Jones other book, Ripped From The Bible.
Dr. Thomas Holland's 12 Lessons on the King James Bible
Take The Bible Test
For a more complete Table Of Contents, click HERE
"Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." -Mark 8:38
1996
Twelfth Edition
Revised and Enlarged
(First Edition 1989)
FLOYD NOLEN JONES, Th.D., Ph.D.
© FLOYD JONES MINISTRIES, INC.
8222 Glencliffe Lane
Houston, Texas 77070
Duis mi elit, aliquet id euismod egestas, venenatis sit amet lectus.