Referring to that Confession of Faith, Mr MacLeod quotes the words asserting the authority of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures — “being immediately inspired of God and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages”. He then goes on to allege that in the opinion of the Westminster divines no version was to be regarded as of final authority. He overlooks the fact that the Greek Scriptures to which the Westminster divines referred were the Greek Scriptures underlying the Authorised Version. It was in relation to this form of the text that they made the great declaration that it had been “kept pure”. They would have rejected any suggestion of abbreviating Romans 8.1, not because it was in the Authorised Version, but because it was in the underlying Greek, preserved by the singular care and providence of God.
It will be observed that in the Westminster Confession, Ch. 15, para 3,4, “Of repentance unto life”, the doctrine is stated in these words — “Although repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God’s free grace in Christ; yet is it of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it. As there is no sin so small but it deserved damnation; so there is no sin so great, that it can bring damnation upon those who truly repent.” In support of this doctrine the Westminster divines quoted Romans 8.1 in full, as it stands in the Authorised Version — as faithfully representing the Greek text “kept pure” by the care and providence of God.
The Majority text underlying the A.V.
In company with other critics of the Authorised Version, Mr MacLeod gives the impression that the Greek text underlying it rests only upon the authority of the comparatively small number of documents available to Erasmus, Stephens, Stunica and the Elzevirs, but this is not the case. The great majority of the documents discovered in more recent times are of a similar character to those used by the earlier editors, and the so-called “received text” should be referred to as the “majority text.” Mr MacLeod finds an ally in Professor Bruce in his criticism of Erasmus for translating the last few verses of Revelation from the Latin, these verses having been lost from his Greek copy. This criticism appears inconsistent and unjust when it is remembered that, in the opinion of the textual critics esteemed by Mr MacLeod the Greek text underlying the Latin Vulgate is in many respects better than that underlying the A.V. If they had confidence in their own case they would have regarded the procedures of Erasmus as quite safe.
Departure from the Reformed tradition
In common with many evangelical preachers and writers today, Mr MacLeod acknowledges that “the A.V. is of course an excellent translation — arguably still the most accurate and satisfactory of all the English versions.” The significant word in this sentence is “arguably”, and the writer shows that in many passages he would argue that the A.V. should be made to conform with the B-Aleph type of text — the text mutilated by the anti-Trinitarians. He dismisses the “suspicion among some evangelicals that to depart from the received text is to make a major concession to modernism and to prove disloyal to the Reformed tradition, and he leans upon B.B. Warfield for support. Unfortunately, in this field Warfield was not a reliable guide, and it is relevant to compare just one sentence of the Westminster Confession with one sentence of Warfield’s.
In his little book on textual criticism, he writes (page 107) “All canons of criticism are only general averages and operate like a probability based upon a calculation of chances . . . a chance is always open that a particular instance is one of the exceptions.” This gives a very different view from that set forth by the Westminster divines — “The New Testament in Greek . . . being immediately inspired of God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages.” It is beyond question that the views expressed by Warfield on the New Testament text do represent a departure from the “Reformed tradition.”
Changes and omissions demanded by the critics
Mr MacLeod asserts that no modern edition of the text is based on B-Aleph alone, but upon a collation of all the manuscripts. Unfortunately, in the estimation of modern scholars the respectability of other manuscripts is to a large extent proportional to their conformity with B, Aleph and their allies. On page 133 of his book Warfield says that “B and Aleph are nearly always right, alone, or supported by others, and that even when wholly alone B attains the greater excellence and stands forth as the best single codex known.” The reader is at liberty to ask the editorial board of the “Banner of Truth” — how many verses, in addition to Romans 8.1, have to be amended or expunged from our English Bible and from the Westminster Confession of Faith if we bow to the judgement of Warfield, and those who share his views? A careful examination of Warfield’s book will show that the following passages must be regarded as spurious or suspect:—
Matthew 6.4 — omit “openly” (page 171).
Matthew 6.13 — omit “For thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory, for ever, Amen” (Page 121).
Mark 1.2 — substitute “Isaiah the prophet” for “the prophets” (page 171).
Mark 9.46 — omit whole verse (page 173).
Mark 9.49 — omit “and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt” (page 173).
Mark 11.26 — omit whole verse (page 173).
Mark 16. 9-20 — omit twelve verses (pages 199-204) “There is no room for accepting this conclusion for the one that Mark wrote or intended to write”.
Luke 2.43 — substitute “His parents” for “Joseph and Mary” (page 96).
– Luke 11.2 – omit “which art in heaven” (page 175).
– John 1.18 – substitute “only begotten God” for “only begotten Son” (page 192).
John 7.53 – 8.11 – omit twelve verses (page 197)
Romans 5.1 – substitute “let us have peace” for “we have peace” (page 104).
Romans 8.1 – omit “who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit” (page 100).
1 Timothy 3.16 – substitute “Who was manifested” for “God was manifested” (pages 193-196).
An equivocal position
Those who subscribe to the Westminster Confession and adopt such a view of the text are in an equivocal position similar to that occupied by the ritualistic “Tractarians” a century or more ago. They subscribed to the Reformed doctrines set forth in the 39 Articles of the Church of England, and then proceeded to undermine them by teaching much that was contrary to them. They explained this conduct by stating that they subscribed to the Articles with some mental reservations. Is it possible to subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith with the reservations that –
– (a) The text “Kept pure in all ages” was for many centuries preserved “by the singular care and providence of God.” – embalmed in a highly defective copy in the Vatican library; and
– (b) The Scripture proof texts in the Westminster Confession of Faith should be brought into line with the textual theories of Westcott and Hort, Warfield, and others who insist that the B-Aleph type of text is the purest and best?
No one would question the sincere desire of the editors of the “Banner of Truth”, and others who share their views, to preserve the purity of the Word of God, but the result of their acceptance of unsound textual theories is that they are advocating a form of the text that is far from pure. They rendered a useful service in publishing Dr Dabney’s works, and they would be in a much stronger position if they were to acknowledge that his low evaluation of the B-Aleph text was correct. It is strange that they should discern the theological bias of the R.S.V. and N.E.B., and at the same time fail to perceive the highly dangerous theological bias which gave rise to the most significant omissions and variations in the B-Aleph text – those which relate to the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The ecumenical assault on the A.V. text
For too long evangelicals have been expressing their admiration of the general fabric of the Authorised Version, and at the same time sedulously undermining its foundations, while modernists, Romanists, and false sects join in the assault. The form of the text now generally approved by “Biblical scholars”, and now commended by the “Banner of Truth”, has gained ecumenical acceptance, being extolled by Roman Catholics, liberals, evangelicals, and “Jehovah’s Witnesses”. This phenomenon alone leaves the character of this text open to the gravest suspicion, and it is to be regretted that those responsible for the “Banner of Truth” have been more ready to follow than to lead, and are now beginning to lead in the wrong direction.
“If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?”
“If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to battle?”