Johann Jakob Wettstein

Wettstein was a textual scholar who collated manuscripts and published the first Critical Greek New Testament which abandoned the Traditional Text, in 1730 and 1751-52. He was Swiss-born but lived in the Netherlands.

“His Travels to Geneva, Lyons, Paris, and England, in connection with which he visited all accessible libraries and made himself acquainted with all the more important manuscripts of the New Test., served to enlarge the range of his views, as did also association with Montfaucon, La Rue, and Bentley”

(McClintock & Strong Cyclopedia).

Wettstein catalogued about 200 manuscripts, classifying them as uncials (assigned capital letters), minuscules (assigned numbers), and lectionaries (numbered and prefixed with "l"). His system was later modified by Caspar Gregory, another Unitarian.

Wettstein was heretical in his theology.

He was Socinian, meaning that he denied the full Biblical deity of Jesus Christ.

“Wettstein’s orthodoxy had for some time been suspected. He was charged with holding Arian and Socinian errors, and to this fault were now added his alleged [text-]critical aberrations.

His preference of “ΟΣ” ("which/who") over “ΘΣ [=θεος]” (= "God") in 1st Tim. 3:16 ... was credited to an alleged desire of depriving the doctrine of Christ’s deity of a proof-text.

Complaints respecting his heterodoxy were expressed even in the Diet of the Confederation, and ultimately a formal process of inquisition was inaugurated against him. ... He was ultimately dismissed from his post, May 13, 1730."

It was obvious to most Bible believers of that day that the critical Greek text supported heretical doctrines, weakened the doctrine of Christ’s deity, and represented doctrinal corruptions introduced by heretics in the 3rd and 4th centuries.

After that, Wettstein taught philosophy and Hebrew at the Arminian college in Amsterdam (College of the Remonstrants), assuming the vacated seat of the modernistic Jean Leclerc (Johannes Clericus), who had “maintained that reason is an infallible guide in judging of all that man needs to know for salvation” (Schaff-Herzog). Leclerc suggested that Luke produced two editions of the book of Acts (Metzger, p. 163). Thenceforward Wettstein made Holland his home”

(McClintock & Strong Cyclopedia, “Johann Wettstein”).

Wettstein also denied the infallible inspiration of Scripture and in this he influenced the German modernist Johann Semler.

“The traditional view regarded the canon as constituting a unit which is everywhere equally inspired; and this view had been shaken in his [Semler’s] own mind by the studies of R. Simon Clericus, and Wettstein, and also by his own investigations”

(McClintock & Strong, “Johann Semler”).

From this close association, we can see that the Unitarians and the more extreme 'modernists' (rationalists) worked hand in hand, and shared the same heretical ideas and beliefs, denying the Divine Inspiration, Providential Preservation, and Doctrinal purity of the Holy Bible. They treated the Bible as an ordinary book, written by uninspired religious fanatics, full of errors and superstitions, including the main doctrines of the Christian faith.

These were the "fathers" of the 'modern versions' (modern English translations) which were based on the new 'critically reconstructed Greek text' made by adopting minority readings found in a handful of 4th century manuscripts.

Unitarians, Rationalists, agnostics, and other uncommitted academics had created a Greek New Testament out of the errors of ancient manuscripts which had removed some 200 whole and half-verses from the Bible, and wanted the Christian world to adopt it as "improved".

Ever hear of the story of Aladdin's Lamp, in which the wicked con-man tricks Aladdin's servant out of his magic lamp, by shouting "New Lamps for Old! Come and trade your old lamp for this shiney new one! New Lamps for Old!"

Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812)

German rationalist theologian pioneer of modern literary/historical analysis of the biblical text. Born in Hesse, Griesbach studied under Johann S. Semler at Halle (Prussia). He expanded the ms. base of the Greek NT & published (1774-75) the first revised edition of the traditional Greek NT (i.e., Textus Receptus 'TR' ="received text,") complete with an extensive critical apparatus.

Griesbach's False Solution to the 'Synoptic Problem'

He was appointed professor of NT studies at the U of Jena (1775). In 1776 he published A Synopsis of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark & Luke, the work that launched modern gospel studies. Since that time these three gospels have been referred to as "the synoptics."

Pointing to discrepancies between gospel narratives, Griesbach dismissed traditional attempts to harmonize these accounts & focused attention on their literary dependence instead. He accepted J. B. Koppe's observation that the text of Mark is often closer to Luke. This led him to reverse Augustine's account and claim that Mark was an uninspired compilation from Matthew & Luke. In 1789 he published his defense of this thesis as "A Demonstration that the Whole Gospel of Mark is Excerpted from the Narratives of Matthew & Luke." In the 19th c. Griesbach's thesis was championed by his student, W. L. de Wette. After years of neglect it was revived in 1964 by the American scholar, W.R. Farmer as "the Two Gospel hypothesis."

In his Demonstration, Griesbach summed up his argument as follows:

This is a summary of the thesis we are defending:

When writing his book, Mark had not only Matthew but also Luke positioned before his eyes;

and from these (texts) he excerpted whatever deeds, speeches and sayings of the Savior he committed to memory;

so that mainly & most often he followed Matthew as a guide; yet sometimes, leaving Matthew, he allied himself with Luke;

where he would stick to Matthew's tracks, he still would not let Luke out of his eyesight, but would compare him with Matthew and vice-versa;

he would try to be brief, as he wanted to write a book with minimum mass; So not only did he leave out what was not pertinent to the role of teacher, which the Lord performed in public..., he also passed over several of Christ's wordier speeches.

Furthermore, ...he kept in mind his readers: that is, people far from Palestine, among whom the maxims & customs of Palestinian Jews, especially the Pharisees, were not well known, nor were necessary to know; so, partly for this reason,

he would cut out some things found in Matthew or Luke that were meant only for Jews, especially those in Palestine, or fit their way of thinking...,

he would be stingier in citing OT passages...,

he would add things that he thought necessary as illustration or useful for his readers to understand the narrative....

In Griesbach's view, Mark worked like a cross between a researcher & a Reader's Digest editor to produce for non-Jewish readers a single condensed version of two books, adding only minor details & 24 new sentences to passages quoted from his sources. Other scholars were not persuaded that this presented a realistic picture of how ancient scribes functioned.

Thus Griesbach rejected the originality, inspiration, and effort of Mark entirely, as he saw it.

---

EDWARD HARWOOD (c. 1765-1776)

Harwood had a D.D. from Edinburgh and was ordained to the Presbyterian ministry in Bristol, England, in 1765. McClintock & Strong (1895) says, “His character, however, was so immoral that his congregation dismissed him.” He moved to London, where “he supported himself by teaching the classics and correcting the press.”

Though Metzger describes Harwood merely as “a Non-conformist minister,” McClintock & Strong identifies him as “a learned Unitarian minister.” Thus Harwood denied the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. He also translated many works of Firmin Abauzit, a French Unitarian.

Harwood published a 'critical' Greek New Testament in 1776, which “deserted the Textus Receptus more than 70 percent of the time” (B. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 1968, p. 116).

Harwood also published A Liberal Translation of the New Testament into polite English (London, 1768).

---

ALEXANDER GEDDES (c.1769-1802)

Geddes was a Scottish Catholic priest in Auchinhalrig and Preshome in Scotland from 1769 to 1779, at which time he moved to London where he spent the rest of his life.

He was closely associated with the Unitarians in Britain led by Joseph Priestley (James Sightler, Tabernacle Essays on Bible Translation, 1992, p. 11). Geddes was a contributor to The Analytical Review, which began publication in May 1788. The editor was Unitarian Thomas Christie and the publisher was Unitarian bookseller Joseph Johnson. The aim of the publication was “provide a principal repository of sentiments most favourable to rational liberty, both in politics and religion”

Geddes studied in Germany under theological modernists and went even farther than the German theologians in some ways.

In 1800 Geddes published Critical Remarks on the Hebrew Scriptures, which presented the heresies of Eichhorn and his German school. In fact, he even went beyond Eichhorn:

Geddes “broached a theory of the origin of the Five Books exceeding in boldness either Simon’s or Eichorn’s. This was the well-known ‘Fragment’ hypothesis, which reduced the Penteteuch to a collection of fragmentary sections partly of Mosaic origin, but put together in the reign of Solomon. Geddes’ opinion was introduced into Germany in 1805 by Vater” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, p. 493).

Geddes gave the famous poet S.T. Coleridge a letter of introduction to the modernist H. Paulus in 1798, when Coleridge and fellow poet William Wordsworth traveled to Germany.

Geddes published the first part of his translation of the Bible in 1792, and the second part in 1797. Geddes was working on a critical translation of the Psalms when he died on February 26, 1802. The translation of the Psalms was published postumously in 1807.

---

Thomas Belsham (c. 1789-1812)

Prominent Unitarian leader Joseph Priestly attempted to publish a new English version based on the Greek text of Griesbach, and the project was well advanced when the manuscript was destroyed in a fire in 1791.

Priestly’s successor, Thomas Belsham, carried the idea on. Belsham had become a Unitarian in 1789. Belsham's Life of Theophilus Lindsey (1812) contained a chapter titled "American Unitarianism" that revealed many American clergy had Unitarian views.

When the Unitarian Book Society (the original UBS!) was formed, a major goal was a new English version based on the Griesbach Critical Greek text.

Archbishop Newcome's English NT (Revised, 1808)

Instead, in 1808 the UBS published an “improved” edition of William Newcome's 1796 translation, “chiefly because it followed Griesbach’s text” .

The 'corrections' were not however approved by Newcome, and were apparently done without his knowledge. He had died in 1800.

This publication “drew the fire of the orthodox for omitting several passages traditionally cited as pillars of Trinitarian doctrine,” such as “God” in 1 Tim. 3:16 and the Trinitarian statement in 1st John 5:7, as late interpolations.

It should be understood however, that the Unitarians had issued their Improved Version anonymously. The adaptations for a sectarian purpose were mainly the work of Thomas Belsham, who was scolded by Newcome's brother-in-law, Joseph Stock, D.D., bishop of Killala and Achonry (1809).

(see Earl Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism in Transylvania, England, and America, 1952, p. 339; see also P. Marion Simms, The Bible in America, pp. 255-258)

---

Karl Lachmann (c. 1831-1850)

Though there were many others who had begun to work in this direction,[15] the new era of textual criticism arguably began with the German 15 Among those who preceded Lachmann’s break with Textus Receptus are Johann Griesbach, Franz Alter, Andreas Birch, Jacob Addler, D.G. Moldenhauer, O.G. Tychsen, Johann Hug, Johannes and Scholz. philologist and critic Karl Lachmann, who in 1831 published what he hoped to be “the first edition of the New Testament to be completely free of the influence of the Textus Receptus” (Hertz, 1851:157; Aland and Aland, 1989:11); second and third editions of Lachmann’s work were published between 1842 and 1850.

Lachmann is considered to be the first “recognized scholar” to break from the traditional use of the Textus Receptus (Metzger, 2005:124), and his desire to be free of it was driven by an emphasis on the Alexandrian texts as opposed to the Byzantine texts which the Textus Receptus relied so heavily upon. Lachmann’s rules (1842:Preface) for textual criticism which governed his new edition of the New Testament text are stated in the preface to his second edition. Below is a paraphrase of these rules.

1. Nothing is better attested than that in which all authorities agree.
2. The agreement has less weight if part of the authorities is silent or in any way defective.
3. The evidence for a reading, when it is that of witnesses of different regions, is greater than that of witnesses of some particular place, differing either from negligence or from set purpose.
4. The testimonies are to be regarded as doubtfully balanced when witnesses from widely separated regions stand opposed to others equally wide apart.
5. Readings are uncertain which occur habitually in different forms in different regions.
6. Readings are of weak authority if they are not universally attested in the same region.

Lachmann did not attempt to recreate the original text, which he did not believe was possible (Metzger, 2005:124-125); instead, he sought to recreate the text of the 4th century. In the end he chose to expunge John 7:53- 8:11 from the text because of its absence in then known 4th century manuscripts.

Because Lachmann broke with the traditional view, his theory was received with much skepticism at the time.

It was only later that Lachmann’s boldness in rejecting the traditionally accepted text, Textus Receptus (TR), would be openly copied by most textual critics. Modern scholars who argue for a Majority Text Theory still question his methodology.

His theory about the Alexandrian text-type vs the Byzantine text-type would be expanded upon by later scholars, even though his edition of the Greek NT is no longer used.

---

Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (c. 1850-1860)

Following Davidson, Samuel Tregelles emerged in Britain and became a major force in biblical criticism. Tregelles likewise questioned the traditionally accepted text, Textus Receptus, and followed the earlier views of Karl Lachmann, but his work also exceeded that of Lachmann.

He spent numerous years traveling throughout much of Europe collating manuscripts that would be used for his 1857 single edition of the New Testament text, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek NT, based on the oldest manuscripts that were available to him.

Tregelles’ work included nearly all Greek manuscripts down to the seventh century, plus the earliest Patristic citations and versions (Metzger, 2005:127-128).

The Hijacking of Horne's Handbook

Tregelles conspired with Davidson to take control of Horne's Handbook, and fill it with their own radical theories of NT reconstruction, and so subvert the next whole generation of students at Oxford and Cambridge, where Horne's work was the defacto standard text. See our article on the hijacking of Horne here:
Tregelles, Davidson and Horne < - - click here.

---

Konstantin Von Tischendorf (1815-1874)

Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf (1815-1874),German New Testament textual critic

Born in Lengenfeld, Tischendorf studied at Leipzig (1834-1838) under J. G. B. Winer, a noted Greek grammarian whose Grammar of NT Greek (1822) had become a standard for many generations. For many years thereafter Tischendorf also taught in the theology department at Leipzig.

Influenced by Winer, He desired to use the most ancient manuscripts (following the ideas of Lachmann etc.) and thereby recover the 'purest and earliest form' of the Greek NT. To that end he devoted a lifetime to collating manuscripts and producing more accurate editions of the Greek New Testament. He 'discovered' Codex Sinaiticus (א), deciphered the palimpsest Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus(C), collated countless manuscripts, and produced 8 editions of the Greek NT.

Of all Tischendorf's accomplishments, the best known is his 'discovery' of Codex Sinaiticus (א) at St. Catherine's Monastery (located near Mount Sinai). The manuscript, dated around AD. 360 to 375, is one of the two oldest vellum (treated animal hide) manuscripts of the Greek New Testament.

According to his version of the story, the first time he visited the monastery (1844), he retrieved several leaves of an ancient Septuagint from a wastebasket. Many other leaves, he was told, had already been used to stoke fires. On another visit (1859) he was shown a copy of the Greek Scriptures (containing books of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament) by the steward of the monastery.

Recognizing it as possibly the oldest extant complete copy of the Greek Scriptures, Tischendorf attempted to purchase the manuscript but was refused. After making a transcription of the text, he did some political maneuvering wherein the Czar of Russia was given the manuscript in exchange for favors conferred upon the authorities of the monastery.

However, according to the monastery, Tischendorf in fact stole the manuscript, by stealth or misrepresentation, and they view it as their property to this day.

Tischendorf over-used the readings of Codex Sinaiticus in preparing his final critical edition (the 8th) of the Greek NT.

---

G.R. Noyes (c. 1860s)

In 1869 the American Unitarian Association (AUA) published an English translation of Tischendorf's Greek text (7th ed. 1856), by George R. Noyes.

Obviously Noyes was a Unitarian promoter, deeply involved in the movement. The readings gathered and followed by Tischendorf clearly favoured the Unitarian position in their eyes.

---

Samuel Davidson (c. 1840-1880)

Another Unitarian, Samuel Davidson published an English translation of Tischendorf's Greek NT (8th ed.) in 1875, just 7 years before the infamous Revised Version was released (1882). Obviously this was for the express purpose of promoting the current critical Greek text, as conceived and concocted by those following the theories of Griesbach, Lachmann and Tischendorf.

Davidson and the Pericope de Adultera

Samuel Davidson, an Irish-born scholar, followed Karl Lachmann in questioning the Pericope de Adultera (PA, Jn 7:53-8:11) in his book, An Introduction to the NT, published in 1848 and republished in 1896. Davidson would become the entryway through which the German textual criticism of the 19th century, along with questions regarding John 7:53-8:11, entered the English- speaking world.

In fact, his modernist views on the Old Testament, which broke from the traditional view, created a controversy that forced him to resign from his position as the chair of biblical criticism at the Lancashire Independent College at Manchester. It was later at the University of London that he was able to further his work in textual criticism, and here where he also turned his attention to the New Testament.

Davidson’s views were similar to Lachmann’s, but Davidson went much further in detailing the case against the PA in particular. He questioned not only the textual evidence of early manuscripts but also the silence of several Church Fathers’ commentaries regarding John 7:53-8:11, most notably Cyprian and Tertullian, as well as discussing contextual and vocabulary/stylistic evidence (1896:513-516).

Davidson appears to have been relatively fair in this assessment of the situation presenting evidence for both sides of the argument, as it was then known and understood by the German higher critics; however, in the end he concluded,

“On reviewing the external evidence for and against the paragraph, we believe that the [evidence against the Pericope Adulterae] predominates; and so furnishes a reason for entertaining suspicions of its spurious character” (1848:358).

Samuel Davidson’s view that the PA does not belong in the Gospel of John would prove to be the start of a growing majority opinion.

---

Fenton John Anthony Hort (c. 1860-1892)

1828-1892. Anglican critic and professor at Cambridge University. Most famous textual critic of his age. Best known for the NT Greek text which he edited with Brooke Foss Westcott. What made this edition so important, however, was not its text (though it has been the template for most critical editions since) but its Introduction [and] Appendix, which was entirely the work of Hort. In it, Hort outlined his theory of text-types (which was adapted from Griesbach and his predecessors). In the process, Hort is considered to have destroyed all claims that the Byzantine Majority text is early.

This is perhaps the most important effect of Hort's work; most popular critical Greek texts since his time have been "Hortian" (i.e., following most of his textual readings). For discussion of his arguments, see articles on the Byzantine Priority position.

Hort also dominated the committee which prepared the English Revised Version (1882), and most of that edition's departures from the Byzantine Text were made on the advice of Hort. (The committee's policy was reportedly to hear the arguments of Hort and Scrivener and then vote on which reading to adopt.)

The Unitarian bias in the notes of the Revised Version is well known. The great energy with which Hort and his followers argued for the adopted readings makes clear how important they were deemed by those looking to support Unitarianism.

---

EZRA ABBOT (c. 1880)

(cited from David Cloud's Webpage)

"Abbot was on the American Standard Version translation (ASV) committee (1901). He was a Harvard theology professor and was an influential textual critic.

The testimony of Matthew Riddle, who was a translator on the ASV committee:

“Dr. Abbot was the foremost textual critic in America, and his opinions usually prevailed when questions of text were debated”

(Matthew Riddle, The Story of the Revised New Testament, 1908, p. 30).

Matthew Riddle‘s testimony is very important, as he was one of the most influential members of the ASV committee and one of the few members who survived to see the translation printed.

The testimony of the ASV committee upon the death of Abbot on March 21, 1884. The following excerpt from a memorial resolution issued by the committee gives additional evidence of the Unitarian’s influence on the Revision on both sides of the ocean:

“Always one of the first in his place at the table, and one of the last to quit it, he [Ezra Abbot] brought with him thither the results of careful preparation. His suggestions were seldom the promptings of the moment. Hence they always commanded consideration; often secured instant adoption. ... But it was in questions affecting the Greek text that Dr. Abbot’s exceptional gifts and attainments were pre-eminently helpful. Several of his essays on debated passages, appended to the printed reports of our proceedings which were forwarded from time to time to the brethren in England, are among the most thorough discussions of the sort which are extant, won immediate respect for American scholarship in this department, and HAD NO SMALL INFLUENCE IN DETERMINING THAT FORM OF THE SACRED TEXT WHICH WILL ULTIMATELY, WE BELIEVE, FIND ACCEPTANCE WITH ALL CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS”

(Historical Account of the Work of the American Committee of Revision, 1885, p. 68).

Abbot was a Christ-denying Unitarian.

He authored the footnotes in the ASV that say that Christ should not be worshipped and that question his deity. For example, at John 9:38, the wicked footnote states,

“The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (as here) or to the Creator.”

"I [David Cloud] cite this from an edition of the 1901 ASV that I have in my library."*

He argued that the last clause of Romans 9:5 was a doxology to God and does not refer to Christ.

In Acts 20:28 Abbot led the committee to remove “God” and replace it with “the Lord,” thus corrupting this powerful witness to the deity of Jesus Christ. Unitarians and theological modernists alleged that Jesus is “the Lord” but not actually God.

Abbot wrote a long article arguing for the omission of “God” in 1st Timothy 3:16.

---

GEORGE VANCE SMITH (c. 1871-1882)

Smith was on the British translation committee that produced the English Revised Version (RV), 1882 .

He was a Unitarian minister of St. Saviour’s Gate Chapel, York, who denied the deity and atonement of Jesus Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, and the divine inspiration of Scripture. This was made plain in his book The Bible and Popular Theology, which appeared in 1871. This was reissued in 1901 in an enlarged fifth edition entitled The Bible and Its Theology: A Review, Comparison, and Re-statement. Consider some of the blasphemies that came from the pen of this man:

“... what is really meant by the term in question [the Holy Spirit], is no other than God himself ... but this fact will not justify us in saying that it is ‘God the Holy Spirit,’ as though it were a distinct personality...” (Smith, The Bible and Its Theology, p. 215).

“[Salvation] was in no way purchased of him [God] or of his justice. It was not because his ‘wrath’ was appeased, or satisfied by the sufferings of an innocent substitute, but because of his own essential fatherly goodness and ‘great love.’ ‘It is the gift of God,’ not a thing bought from him with a price, except in so far as this might be FIGURATIVELY said in reference to that death of the Messiah...” (Smith, The Bible and Its Theology, p. 246).

“... it is equally clear that it was not as their substitute that he died for men; not to redeem them from eternal misery; not ... because the clouds of God’s wrath had gathered thick over the human race, and required a victim, and could find that victim only in the innocent Jesus! ... The popular theory, in reality, is largely the product of dark and ignorant ages...” (Smith, The Bible and Its Theology, pp. 248, 253).

“It is, that the Bible manifestly offers itself to us, the people of these later times, largely as a Book of History. It never professes or claims to be more: never, in truth, makes any profession or claim at all on that point; but stands before us there, simply as a collection of writings preserving for us the remaining literature, the traditions, and the history of the Hebrews. ... It nowhere, in truth, claims inspiration, or says anything definite about it. The biblical inspiration, whatever it is or was, would seem, like the genius of Shakespeare, to be unconsciously possessed. The phrase, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ and its equivalents, are simply to be referred to the style of the prophet; or to be understood only as indicating his belief that what he was about to say was conformable to the Divine Will. ... It is scarcely allowable, in short, to think of inspiration as being or acting in THE DEAD WORDS OF ANY BOOK” (Smith, The Bible and Its Theology, pp. 269, 276, 277).

“Then again, are we not, all of us who seek to be so, spiritual Sons of God?” (Smith, The Bible and Its Theology, p. 298).

“Jesus of Nazareth is nowhere presented to us as God, but simply as the Christ... ‘There is one God, the Father,’ and ‘one Lord, Jesus Christ;’ but these are not in any sense one being or one nature” (Smith, The Bible and Its Theology, p. 299).

When an attempt was made to have Smith removed from the RV translation committee, Westcott, Hort, Stanley, and Thirlwall stood by him and threatened that they would resign if Smith were removed.

The sordid story is given by A.G. Hobbs in the foreword to the Centennial Edition of Burgon’s Revision Revised:

“[Smith’s participation in the communion service] led to a public protest signed by ‘some thousands of the Clergy.’ The Upper House passed a Resolution that,

‘no person who denies the Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ ought to be invited to join either company to which was committed the Revision of the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture: and that it is further the judgment of this House that any person now on either Company should cease to act therewith.’

This Resolution was also passed by the Lower House. And still they could not get this non-believer off the Committee. Here is a real shocker: Dean Stanley, Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Thirlwall all refused to serve if Smith were dismissed. Let us remember that the Bible teaches that those who uphold and bid a false teacher God speed are equally guilty. ‘For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds’ (2 John 9-11). No wonder that the Deity of Christ is played down in so many passages!”

(A.G. Hobbs, Foreword, The Revision Revised Centennial Edition).

Smith testified that the textual changes in the English Revised Version and the Westcott-Hort Greek NT reflected his own theology.

Some of the passages listed by Smith as being theologically superior in the modern texts and versions as opposed to the King James Bible were Rom. 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:16; Tit. 2:13; and 1 Jn. 5:7, and that is because these passages in the critical text weakened the doctrine of Christ’s deity, which Smith rejected.

This English Reviser admitted what modern version proponents today such as James White often try to deny, that the modern Greek texts and versions weaken the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ! No man is blinder than he who WILL NOT see. Following are two examples from Smith’s pen:

“The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: ‘At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,’ [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read ‘in the name.’ Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed IT IS WELL UNDERSTOOD THAT THE N.T. CONTAINS NEITHER PRECEPT NOR EXAMPLE WHICH REALLY SANCTIONS THE RELIGIOUS WORSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST” (Smith, Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, p. 47). This statement, of course, is a lie; but we reprint it to demonstrate the damnable heresies of this modern textual critic.

“The old reading [“God” in 1 Tim. 3:16] is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament. ... It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of THE GROWING TENDENCY IN EARLY CHRISTIAN TIMES ... TO LOOK UPON THE HUMBLE TEACHER AS THE INCARNATE WORD, AND THEREFORE AS ‘GOD MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH’” (G. Vance Smith, Texts and Margins, p. 39).

---

JOSEPH HENRY THAYER (c. 1880-1920)

Thayer was on the American Standard Version (ASV) translation team (chairman of the New Testament committee) and was the author of the famous Thayer’s Greek Lexicon.

He was a Harvard professor of New Testament criticism. He was the assistant to Ezra Abbot at Harvard, and succeeded him as Bussey professor of NT criticism and interpretation at the Harvard Divinity School when Abbot died in 1884.

He was a Unitarian who denied the deity of Christ and the infallibility of Scripture. Prior to his tenure at Harvard, Thayer was a professor at Andover Seminary, but resigned in 1882 in protest to Andover’s requirement of “a rigid assent to the letter of the Creed” (Ernest Gordon, The Leaven of the Sadducees, 1926, p. 145).

Thayer could not assent to the infallibility of Scripture or the deity of Jesus Christ.

---

CASPAR RENÉ GREGORY (c. 1880-1917)

Gregory, who was American-born but German by naturalization, wrote influential books on textual criticism, including The Canon and Text of the NT (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907). He expanded the system of identifying manuscripts that is still in use today, with the papyri indicated by an initial p followed by the number (p45, p66), the uncials by numerals with an initial "0" (Aleph or Sinaiticus is 01, Vaticanus or B is 03, etc.) (while retaining Wettstein’s capital letters for the uncials through 045), the minuscules with Arabic numerals (1, 2 , 3, etc.), the lectionaries Arabic numerals prefixed with the l (l2, l4), etc.

Gregory was also a Unitarian. He was the pupil of Unitarian Ezra Abbot at Harvard and was the son-in-law to Unitarian Joseph Thayer (Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8, p. 216).

Gregory became Professor of Textual Criticism of the NT at the modernistic University of Leipzig, and he worked with Ezra Abbot in Germany (The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1908, Vol. II, p. 109). Gregory and Abbot completed the work Constantine Tischendorf left behind at his death (Schaff-Herzog, vol. II, p. 109) and reissued the 8th edition of Tischendorf’s Greek NT with critical notes. Gregory was planning a 9th edition of Tischendorf’s NT, but he was killed in World War I fighting on the side of Germany.

Gregory’s unbelief is witnessed by the following quotes from his writings:

“Christianity has not grown to be what it is, has not maintained itself and enlarged itself, by reason of books being read, no, not even by reason of the Bible’s being read from generation to generation” (Caspar Gregory, The Canon and Text of the New Testament, 1907, p. 44).

“THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN AUTHORS DID NOT FOR AN INSTANT SUPPOSE THAT THEY WERE WRITING SACRED BOOKS” (Gregory, The Canon and Text of the New Testament, p. 49).

“THE LETTERS THAT THE APOSTLES WROTE TO THEM WERE NOT ‘BIBLE’” (Gregory, The Canon and Text of the New Testament, p. 55).

Gregory was obviously not a mainstream Bible believing Christian.

---

Unitarian Alterations of the NT

Examples of the wholesale modification of traditional Trinitarian passages changed in most modern versions:

• Matthew 19:17 -- “Why callest thou me good?” is changed to “Why do you ask me about what is good?”
• Mark 9:24 -- “Lord” omitted
• Luke 23:42 -- “Lord” changed to “Jesus,” thus destroying this powerful reference to Christ’s deity.
• John 1:27 -- “is preferred before me” omitted
• ---- 3:13 -- “who is in heaven” omitted
• ---- 6:69 -- “the Christ, the Son of the living God” is changed to “the Holy One of God,” thus diluting this powerful witness to Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God
• ---- 9:38 -- “Lord, I believe. And he worshipped Him” omitted, thus removing this powerful and incontrovertible confession of Christ as God
• ---- 10:14 -- “am known of mine” is changed to “mine own know me.” “...this change destroys the exquisite diversity of expression of the original, which implies that whereas the knowledge which subsists between the Father and the Son is mutually identical, the knowledge the creature has of the Creator is of a very different sort; and it puts the creature’s knowledge of the Creator on the same level as the Father’s knowledge of the Son, and the Son’s knowledge of the Father” (Philip Mauro, Which Version: Authorised or Revised?).
• Acts 20:28 -- “church of God” changed to “church of the Lord.” The Traditional Text says plainly that it was God who died on the cross and shed His blood, whereas the Alexandrian text allows for the heretical view that Jesus is the Lord but that he is not actually God.
• Romans 14:10 -- “judgment seat of Christ” is changed to “judgment seat of God.” The “judgment seat of Christ” clearly identifies Jesus Christ with Jehovah God (Isaiah 45:23).
• 1 Corinthians 15:47 -- “the Lord” omitted
• Ephesians 3:9 -- “by Jesus Christ” omitted
• 1 Timothy 3:16 -- “God” is omitted and replaced with “who” or “he”
• 1 John 4:3 -- “confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” changed to “confesseth not Jesus”; every false spirit will “acknowledge Jesus” in a general sense (even Unitarians, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses), but the spirit of antichrist will not “confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh,” meaning that Jesus Christ is the very Messiah, the very God manifest in the flesh, promised in Old Testament prophecy.
• 1 John 5:7-8 -- “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth” omitted