five (some say eight) Greek manuscripts of comparatively late origin, and none of these were of the complete Christian Scriptures. Rather, these consisted of one or more sections into which the Greek Scriptures were generally divided: (1) the Gospels; (2) Acts and the general letters (James through Jude); (3) the letters of Paul; (4) Revelation. In fact, of the some 4,000 Greek Scripture manuscripts only about fifty are complete.

Thus Erasmus had only one copy of Revelation. It being incomplete, he simply retranslated the missing verses from the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. He even repeatedly brought his Greek text in line with the Latin Vulgate, this accounting for the fact that there are some twenty readings in his Greek text not found in any Greek manuscript. And after leaving out 1 John 5:7 from his first two editions he inserted this spurious text upon dubious authority, apparently as a matter of policy, being pressured to do so by Stunica, the editor of the Complutensian Polyglot Bible.

DETHRONING THE RECEIVED TEXT

For some two hundred years Greek Bible scholars were in bondage to the Erasmian-oriented Received Text. As they became acquainted with older and more accurate manuscripts and noticed the flaws in the Received Text, rather than to change that text they would publish their findings in introductions, margins and footnotes of their editions. As late as 1734, J. A. Bengle of Tübingen, Germany, apologized for again printing the Received Text, doing so only “because he could not publish a text of his own. Neither the publisher nor the public would have stood for it,” he complained.

The first one to incorporate his findings in the text itself was the scholar Griesbach. His chief edition appeared in two volumes, the first in 1796 and the second in 1806. Still Griesbach did not fully break away from the Received Text. The first one fully to get out from under its influence was Lachmann, professor of ancient classical languages at Berlin University. In 1831 he published his edition of the Christian Greek Scriptures without any regard to the Received Text. As one authority expressed it: Lachmann “was the first to found a text wholly on ancient evidence; and . . . did much toward breaking down the superstitious reverence for the textus receptus.”

Following Lachmann came Constantine Tischendorf, best known for his discovery of the famed Sinaitic Manuscript, the only Greek uncial (large type) manuscript containing the complete Christian Greek Scriptures. Tischendorf did more than any other scholar to edit and make available the evidence contained in leading as well as lesser uncial manuscripts. During the time Tischendorf was making his valuable contributions to the science of textual criticism in Germany, one Tregelles in England made other valuable contributions. Among other things, he was able to demonstrate his theory of “Comparative Criticism,” that the age of a text may not necessarily be that of its manuscript, since it may be a faithful copy of an earlier text. His text was used by J. B. Rotherham for the Christian Greek Scriptures of his version. The fact that Tischendorf and Tregelles were stout champions of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures doubtless had much to do with the fruitfulness of their labors.

THE WESTCOTT AND HORT TEXT

The same was also true of their immediate successors, the two English scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. Hort, upon whose text the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures is based. They began their work in 1853 and completed it in 1881, working for twenty-eight years independently of each other, yet regularly comparing notes. As one scholar expressed it, they “gathered up in themselves all that was most valuable in the work of their predecessors.” They took every conceivable factor into consideration in endeavoring to solve the difficulties that conflicting texts presented, and when two readings had equal weight they indicated that in their text. They stressed that “knowledge of documents should precede final judgment upon readings” and that “all trustworthy restoration of corrupted texts is founded on the study of their history.” They followed Griesbach in dividing manuscripts into families, stressing the importance of manuscript genealogy. They also gave due weight to internal evidence, “intrinsic probability” and “transcriptional probability,” that is, what the original writer most likely wrote and wherein a copyist may most likely have made a mistake.

They leaned heavily on the “neutral” family of texts, which included the famed fourth-century vellum Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts. They considered it quite conclusive when these two manuscripts agreed, especially when supported by other ancient uncial manuscripts. However, they were not blindly bound to the Vatican manuscript as some have claimed, for by weighing all the factors they time and again concluded that certain minor interpolations had crept into the neutral text that were not found in the group more given to interpolations and paraphrasing, such as the Western family of manuscripts. Thus Goodspeed shows that Westcott and Hort departed from the Vatican manuscript seven hundred times in the Gospels alone.

The text of Westcott and Hort was acclaimed by critics world-wide and, although produced eighty years ago, is still the standard. Well has it been termed “epoch-making in the literal sense of the word,” and “the most important contribution to the scientific criticism of the New Testament text which has yet been made,” excelling all others “in regard to method and extraordinary accuracy.” Of it Goodspeed, in his preface to An American Translation, states: “I have closely followed the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, now generally accepted. Every scholar knows its superiority to the late and faulty texts from which the early English translations from Tyndale to the AV were made.”

In view of the foregoing it can clearly be seen why the New World Bible Translation Committee chose to use the Westcott and Hort text rather than any Received Text of two to three centuries before. There remains but the question, Why is it that omissions rather than additions appear to distinguish the later text from the earlier one?

Because, contrary to what might generally be expected, copyists were prone to add, to elaborate and to paraphrase, rather than to leave out things. Thus we find that the most dependable text is at once the most severe, the most condensed. Of the various places in which the Received Text differs from the Vatican manuscript, 2,877 are instances of additions. Of course, if one is first acquainted with the Received Text, these would appear as omissions.

In conclusion, let it be noted that Jehovah God could have performed a continuous miracle, either by preserving the original autographs or by keeping their copies free from transcribers’ errors, but he did not choose to do so. Rather, he saw fit to guide matters by his providence in such a way that with comparatively few exceptions these errors are inconsequential, consisting mostly of errors in spelling, transposition of words or the use of synonyms.

Truly the foregoing facts serve to strengthen our faith in the authenticity and general integrity of the Christian Greek Scriptures. They indeed have, to quote Professor Kenyon, “come down to us substantially as they were written.” And all this is especially true of the Westcott and Hort text upon which the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures is based.

From Behind the Iron Curtain

TWO years ago I was arrested because I was a witness of Jehovah. At two o’clock at night I was taken to prison and put into a cell. There was already a man in the cell when I entered, and he grumbled: “Not even at night can I have my rest; one man goes, another man comes and tomorrow I have to appear before court.” I apologized and said that the disturbance was not my fault and then I asked why he was there. He replied that he was a building contractor; the fact that a building could not be finished in time was construed by the government as sabotage, and so he was sent to prison. He said he was in favor of justice and did not want to have anything to do with politics, and that is why he had been brought to prison. He then asked me what crime I had committed, to which I replied that I was a witness of Jehovah and told the people the truth. I suggested that we continue the conversation another time.

The next day this builder was condemned to several years’ imprisonment. Now I could instruct him in the truth every day, because he wanted to know who Jehovah’s witnesses are and what they believe, and his interest increased from day to day. After three weeks we did not start a meal before having prayed together, and sometimes he would even say the prayer himself. Somewhat later he asked if he could address me as brother, to which I readily agreed. He said: “One day you will leave the prison and I shall remain here and I would like to serve my time as a witness of Jehovah.” I continued to teach him, and when we got to the subject of dedication, he expressed the desire to be baptized. But I objected to this, because it seemed too soon to me. He insisted though and said: “Brother, you are not taking dedication seriously enough”; which embarrassed me somewhat. I told him that we would continue to study and leave the matter to Jehovah. Here in prison the immersion could not take place and so he would have to wait anyhow. He agreed, and we prayed together every evening.

One evening the jailer came, opened the door of our cell and told us to follow him. At first we expected something bad, but we were wrong. He led us to a door, opened it, told us to step inside and said: “Stay in here until I fetch you again, and don’t make a noise.” He locked the door and there we stood, looking at each other without saying a word; we were in a bathroom! There were two bathtubs filled with water. My prison mate, pointing with his finger at one of the bathtubs, said just one word: “Here.” I felt like Philip in the presence of the Ethiopian. I told him it was not easy to be one of Jehovah’s witnesses; one has to meet many obligations and one has to bury one’s past way of life. He answered: “This is the reason why I am here.” All this came rather suddenly to me, but since he knew what immersion meant, he insisted that I baptize him. And so we prayed to Jehovah and asked his blessing and his guidance upon us, and then I immersed my prison mate in water. Afterward we shaved and put everything in order again. After a while the jailer came, opened the door and brought us back to our cell, without saying a word. We thanked Jehovah again for this wonderful opportunity and continued our study.

At the end of the study my friend said: “Now when you leave me I shall not be alone, but God will be with me.” Soon after, I was released from prison. I am corresponding with him by letter and he always admonishes us to remain faithful to the truth and fulfill our vows, and to remain strong until the end. He is looking forward joyfully to the time of his release, and then he will join us in our good work.