A Review Of Bob Sheehan's Booklet, Which Version Now?

In his booklet, Which Version Now?, Bob Sheehan seeks to defend the current approach to textual criticism and popular English versions such as the NIV and NASV, while disavowing textual defenses which support the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text, and the English Authorized Version. He begins with the following concern:

"The translator has two main problems. Firstly, he has to determine which of the competing texts of the Bible is the most accurate. . . Secondly, he has to determine which principles will control his translation because these will affect not just occasional words but the whole translation." (p. 1).

For the most part, there are no "competing texts" of the Greek New Testament because almost all modern versions are based on either the United Bible Societies Text (UBS) or the Nestle-Aland Text (NA). These two Greek texts are identical and have made very few changes from the Westcott and Hort Text (WH) of 1881. Therefore, whether one is using WH or the current "eclectic" texts, they are using the same basic text with the same textual omissions. Thus, the text is determined long before the translator begins his work.

Additionally, throughout his booklet Sheehan refers to the work of the textual critic as the work of "the translator." Translators and textual critics are not the same profession. Dr. Arthur Farstad, who chaired the committee for the New King James Version (NKJV), correctly wrote:

"Translators of most contemporary versions assume that the currently popular view is correct, and they often label those readings supporting that theory as 'the best manuscripts.'" (The New King James Version In The Great Tradition, Nelson, p. 110).

After his introduction, Sheehan states that no two manuscripts are 100% alike.

"The problem for the student of the text does not end with the volume of material to be considered. In addition he has to face the fact that no two copies of this vast number of manuscripts (he lists about 5338) are identical" (p.2).

Sheehan then accounts for this by listing several possible reasons for textual variants (p.3).

He is correct in stating that it is hard to find whole manuscripts which are 100% identical. But he is incorrect in stating that none are alike. For example, P64 and P67 are identical causing some to list them as the same manuscript. Also, we must remember that a large number of the manuscripts consist of nothing but fragments, and that a great many of the manuscripts are only portions of the New Testament (NT). So, it is not "5338 Greek manuscripts" (p. 2) of the whole NT. Rather, it is thousands of manuscripts which account for the NT as a whole with many places receiving greater attestation, while other places have few attestations. The count as of 1994 for the manuscripts are as follows: There are 88 fragments or large sections of papyrus manuscripts. 274 uncial manuscripts, again in either fragments, large sections, complete books of the Bible, or the majority of the NT. The minuscules (which are ignored by most textual critics as to their textual value) consist of 2,795, again in part or whole. To this, the lectionaries are added which quote sections or part of the NT. They number 2,193. (Dr. Gordon D. Fee, Studies In The Theory And Method Of New Testament Textual Criticism, pp. 3-6).

As to the accounting of the variants found among the manuscripts, some things should be noted. First, Sheehan lists various possible types of scribal errors without providing for the possibility that some of the differences were deliberate. When one considers the heretical doctrines of Tatian, it is hard to say that his harmony of the Gospels is without some doctrinal corruptions. In fact, many early Christians rejected it because they considered it impure. The same is true of Marcion, who was noted for omitting sections from the Gospel of Luke. Thus, some manuscripts omit the physical resurrection of Jesus found in Luke 24:40 because Marcion denied this truth based on his Gnostic belief that "the Christ" rose from the dead, but Jesus did not. Nor, for that matter, do most who support modern textual criticism comment on the fact that many of the early Egyptian manuscripts were discovered with the Gnostic Gospels, showing some link between the two. (For more examples, please see my MSS Evidence online class: Lesson 4).

Second, Biblical preservation does not call for manuscripts to be inerrant. The manuscripts are simply witnesses to the existence of this or that reading at a given time. Biblical preservation teaches that in each generation there was (and is) the perfect inerrant word of God,; thus, we have God's inerrant word today. We no more need perfectly preserved manuscripts to attest to this than we do the original autographs. The fact that God said He would keep and preserve His Word is evidence enough (Psalm 12:6-7). The manuscripts are only witnesses in the courtroom of debate that God has done as He promised. They are not the preserved words themselves, they are witnesses to the account that the preserved word existed.

Third, Sheehan failed to note the amount of agreement within the Byzantine textual line as opposed to the amount of disagreement within the Alexandrian textual line. He does discuss the "97% agreement," which I will reference later. But it should be noted that the Byzantine textual line, which accounts for the vast majority of the existing Greek manuscripts, has a greater percentage of agreement throughout its whole than does the Alexandrian textual line. The Alexandrian line, which has fewer witnesses than the Byzantine, is notorious for its textual variations in both degree and number. If harmony is a factor, the Byzantine textual line is by far more congruent than any other textual line.

On pages 4 and 5, Sheehan writes:

"If we study and compare the 'Received Text' of the sixteenth century, the Westcott and Hort Text from the nineteenth century, and the United Bible Societies Text of the twentieth century, three notable editions of the Greek text prepared in different centuries on differing principles, we find that they agree for about 97% of their texts. There is only any substantial dispute over 3% of the New Testament text."

Although Sheehan continues throughout his booklet to misinform his readers regarding the 3% of disputed text in the NT, he contradicts himself on page 6 in stating the following:

"The 'Received Text' is not identical with the text found in the majority of manuscripts, nor with a text formed on eclectic principles. It is the same text for about 97% of the time but differs more from the eclectic than from the majority text."

How can the TR, WH, and UBS be in 97% agreement, while at the same time the TR and MT agree 97% of the time with a greater difference between the TR and UBS? If one reads his two statements, they cannot help but see the discrepancy. It is incompatible for the TR to be in agreement with the UBS 97% of the time, while agreeing with the MT 97% of the time, and still proclaim that the TR "differs more from the eclectic (UBS) than from the" MT. The percentages simply do not add up.

The truth is that the TR and MT have a large amount of agreement within the whole of their NT texts. However, the TR and WH (as well as the UBS) have a much lower number of agreement. Dr. Daniel Wallace notes that the textual variance between the TR and the MT numbers 1,838 (The Text Of The New Testament In Contemporary Research, "The Majority Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique." Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 302). Others, such as Drs. Hodges and Farstad list only 500 (Ibid.). Both could be true if Wallace is counting difference such as spelling (minor differences), while Hodges and Farstad count differences in words and omissions (major differences). Regardless, the textual difference between the TR and WH number 5,788 major differences (Lewis, The English Bible From KJV to NIV, Baker Book House, p. 69). This accounts for about 10% of the text, that is to say the Greek text of WH is about 10% different than the Greek TR. Sheehan fails to list this and thus misleads his readers.

Sheehan himself recognizes this and later writes:

"These later manuscripts generally show a broad area of agreement and tend to disagree with the smaller group of earlier manuscripts, versions and early church father quotations." (p. 10).

There is general agreement with the first half of his statement among the supporters of the TR, UBS, and MT. The vast host of manuscripts, which are later, have a broad area of agreement, while the smaller group of Alexandrian manuscripts tend to have a larger area of disagreement. However, the suggestion that Byzantine readings are not found in either the early papyrus, the early versions, or the citations of the church fathers is very debatable and will be dealt with later. The point I am making here is that of greater harmony among the vast Byzantine witnesses as opposed to the large amount of disharmony found in the much smaller Alexandrian witnesses.

Concerning Biblical preservation, Sheehan writes:

"Dr. Hills premise is certainly true in claiming that God has promised to preserve his word (see Matt. 5:18; 24:35; Luke 16:18). However, does preservation mean that he has promised that the church will always use the correct text?" (p. 8)

I must say that it is very refreshing for a supporter of modern versions to agree with the doctrine of preservation. Most try to disprove the verses listed. Therefore, Brother Sheehan is to be commended in stating that the above verses are "certainly true in claiming that God has promised to preserve his word."

Nevertheless, two things are missing here. First, Sheehan is missing in his understanding of what Hills teaches concerning Biblical preservation. The doctrine of Biblical preservation does not demand that the Church will always use the correct text. Although this is most likely through Church history, the fact remains that the Church's acceptance or rejection of the true text does not influence the nature of God, nor is it necessary in order to have Biblical preservation. In fact today serves as an example of this. We are promised in Scripture that God will keep His words without error. Consequently, we MUST have those preserved words today if God's word is true. The fact that the majority of Christians today reject the KJV and support the NIV does not change the promise of God.

Second, Sheehan does not really believe that ALL of God's words have been kept without error. Nor, for that matter, do modern textual scholars. When push comes to shove they will find places where they believe the texts are lacking and that the true readings have been lost in the process of transmission. For example (and this is only one out of many possible examples), consider the following footnote from the Ryrie Study Bible concerning 1 Samuel 13:1. Ryrie writes:

"The original numbers in this verse have apparently been lost in transmission." (p. 432).

If the numbers have in fact truly been lost because of copy mistakes in transmission, then here is a section in God's word that has not been kept. Something has passed away, at least according to textual scholarship. Therefore, Matthew 24:35 cannot mean what it says. Sheehan must decide which is correct; the textual scholar or the text of Scripture.

On this same page, Sheehan write of Dr. Hills:

"As he can produce no evidence of the existence of the majority type of text before the fourth century AD he must develop the idea of their being read to pieces by an enthusiastic church with a new discovery." (p.8).

This is not the only time in his booklet that Sheehan makes the claim that there is no evidence of the Byzantine textual type before the 4th century. Nor is he the only one who makes such a claim. In fact, it is very popular for modern textual critics to state this or something like it. The statement, however, is not true.

First, there is an implication by textual scholars that since the Byzantine type text did not exist before the 4th century, that the true text must be the Alexandrian because it existed before the 4th century. The truth, however, is that the earliest manuscripts are of a mixed textual type and are not pure Alexandrian. In fact, Westcott and Hort demonstrated that the oldest textual type was not the Alexandrian, but the Western with its longer readings (many of which appear in the Byzantine text).

Second, in the very early manuscripts we have non-Alexandrian readings which are found in the TR and MT, but not the UBS or the NA. For example, John 4:1 reads in the Alexandrian manuscripts "Jesus." The later Byzantine manuscripts read "Lord." Thus the TR and MT read "kurios" (Lord) and not "Iesous" (Jesus), as we find in the UBS. It is of no surprise that the KJV reads "Lord" while the NASV and NIV read "Jesus." The reading "Jesus" is Alexandrian and pre-dates the 4th century. The reading "Lord" is found in the host of later Byzantine manuscripts. If the oldest manuscripts have "no evidence" of the "majority type of text" before the 4th century, we would expect for P66 (about 200 AD) and P75 (about 250 AD) to read "Iesous" in agreement with the Alexandrian text, the UBS, NASV, and NIV. However, they do not. Both read "kurios" in full agreement with the TR, MT, and KJV. Therefore, there is evidence for this reading before the 4th century. Even Dr. Wallace concedes (in disagreement with Sheehan's comment above):

"Although isolated Byzantine readings have been located (before the 4th century), the Byzantine text has not." (Wallace, p. 313).

Wallace also footnotes :

"The difference between a reading and a text-type is the difference between a particular variant and a pattern of variation." (Ibid.).

Therefore, one could argue that there are more textual variants which agree with the Alexandrian type text than agree with the Byzantine type text before the 4th century. But to claim "no evidence of the existence of the majority type of text before the fourth century" is simply untrue.

Further, Dr. Gordon Fee, whom Sheehan quotes in his booklet, has pointed out that the TR agrees more with both P66 and P75 then does the Alexandrian Codex Sinaiticus. Nevertheless, both of these early manuscripts have a stronger relationship with Codex Vaticanus than any other. In comparing John chapters 1-8 he found that the TR agreed with P66 when there were textual variants a total of 50.9% of the time. On the other hand, Sinaiticus agreed with P66 in these chapters when there were textual variants only 43.7% of the time (Fee, "Codex Sinaiticus in the Gospel of John: A contribution to methodology in establishing textual relationships," in Studies In The Theory And Method Of New Testament Textual Criticism, pp. 221-243).

Concerning the citations of the church fathers, Sheehan writes:

"Mr. Pickering cannot make the early church fathers support the majority text when those who are engaged perpetually in the study of these fathers state that they do not, and can supply the evidence to prove their claim, as G. D. Fee has done." (p. 12).

True, Dr. Fee believes that the early church fathers supported the Alexandrian text. This is something most textual scholars accept. However, when it comes to textual readings where the TR/MT (and KJV) differ with the Alexandrian texts as well as the UBS/NA, we often find the church fathers agreeing with the TR and the later Byzantine manuscripts.

For example, the earliest manuscripts and the Alexandrian textual line read in John 1:18 "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him." The later Byzantine manuscripts read, "only begotten Son." If what Sheehan and Fee are saying is true, then we would expect the church fathers to cite this verse as "only begotten God" and not "only begotten Son." While there are some church fathers who cite this verse as "only begotten God," the vast majority cite is as "only begotten Son" (Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Alexander, Eusebius, Ambrosiaster, Victorinus, Hilary, Athanasius, Titus, Basil, Gregory-Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Synesis, Theodore, Nonnus, Proclus, Theodoret, Fulgentius, and Caesarius). These church fathers date as early as 202 AD and as late as 542 AD (all dates given of the church fathers reflect the date of their deaths). Certainly, when it comes to this verse, the early church fathers were supporting the reading of the MT.

This is not an isolated example, but one of many. John 5:4 is another. Dr. Metzger states that the verse should be omitted because:

"(of) its absence from the earliest and best witnesses (P66,75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, C, D, W, 33, and some Latin versions)" (A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, p. 179).

The verse is found in the Byzantine textual line, and thus in both the TR and MT. It appears in the early 5th century Byzantine text of Codex A (Byzantine in the Gospels only) and many later Greek MSS. It also appears in some of the Old Latin MSS, the Old Syriac, and some Old Coptic versions. Since this is not an Alexandrian reading, and it is in the Byzantine textual line, we should not expect to find this among the church fathers according to Sheehan's statement. But we do. Tertullian (220 AD), Ambrose (397 AD), Didymus (398 AD), Chrysostom (407 AD), and Cyril (444 AD) all quote the verse. Thus the evidence from the church fathers supports the reading as found in the TR/MT/KJV. There are several other examples, but these prove show that Sheehan's comment is unwarranted.

On the next few pages, Sheehan begins to make a case for eclecticism and its approach to textual criticism. This is all well and fine, and is an accepted approach to the study of NT textual criticism. But what has it produced in the study of this field? Has it really advanced the cause of textual criticism for the modern scholar? The answer to these questions, as responded to by recognized textual scholars today, is that it has not really produced much change in the text of the NT. In fact, the modern eclectic texts (UBS/NA) are really basic revisions of the WH text of 1881, with little use of the latest findings accept in the apparatus provided by these texts. However, the Greek text itself remains basically the same, and therefore prejudiced towards the Alexandrian textual line. Consider the following from Dr. Eldon Epp, who is a colleague of Dr. Fee as well as a former student of Dr. Bruce Metzger. After making several statements about the use of eclecticism in regard to lower criticism, Epp writes: