The following information is taken from Chapter 1 of "For Love of the Bible" By David Cloud Richard Simon 1683-1712: according to Metzger he "laid the foundations of New Testament Textual Criticism" Was a French Roman Catholic, he did not regard the Bible as supernaturally inspired. He was basically an unbeliever. Richard Bentley 1662-1742 one of his principles was "the difficult is to be preferred to the easier reading" which was based on a purely humanistic perspective of the biblical text. Johann Wettstein 1693-1754 collated manuscripts and published a Greek New Testament. Was charched with Arian and Socinian heresy, expelled from the pastorate in Basle. Johannn Griesbach 1745-1812 Student of the Modernist Johan Semler, he was influenced in his younger dats by the rising tide of rationalism sweeping over Germany. both Semler and Griesbach rejected the Deity of Christ and the infallibility of the scripture. Semler was "the leader of the reaction in Germany against the traditional views of the canon of scripture." Griesbach was associated with the mdoernist W.M.L. De Wette, and he wrote the preface to one of his works, in which he denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, claiming that Deuteronomy was not written until the reign of king Josiah. a theory that Griesbach adopted was readings favoring orthodoxy doctrine should be suspect..in other words if there is a reading that plainly teaches the Godhead of Christ or some other foundational doctrine of scripture, that reading should be held in suspect in favor of some other manuscript. Griesbach was the first to declare Mark 16:9-20 as spurious. His theories greatly influenced Wescott and Hort later on, Wescott and Hort said that they venerated the name of Griesbach "above that of every other textual critic of the New Testament. Wescott and Hort "refined the critical methodology developed by Griesbach" Griesbach's theories were bodly rejected by most Protestants and Baptists. Griesbach was however well recieved by the Unitarians. in the beginning of the 19th Century, Bible believing Christians rejected the Critical text as heretical, but the Unitarians and Modernists joyfully recieved the critical text because it supported their doctrinal heresies. Karl Lachman 1793-185 a German Rationalist, produced editions of the N.T. he treated the Bible like any other book. He presupposed that the N.T. was "hopelessly corrupt" He discarded the Received Text in favor of what he considered to be the "oldest and best text" represented by Vaticanus and other similarly corrupt manuscripts. Constantine Von Tischendorf 1815-1874 His work was so loved by the Unitarians that two of them reissued the 8th edition of his N.T. with critical notes after his death. Samuel Tragelles 1813-1875 He adopted his textual criticism from the rationalists that preceded him. consider this quote from Burgon and Miller in the Traditional Text page 9: "that which distinguishes Sacred Science from every other science which can be named is that it is Divine, and has to do with a Book which is inspired; that is, whose true Author is God.... it is chiefly from inattention to this circumstance that misconception prevails in that department of Sacred Science known as 'Textual Criticism" Consider this quote from Edward Hills, who was trained at the post graduate level in the principles of modern textual criticism, he recognized the rationalism and unbelief inherent in this system. "has the text of the New Testament, like those of other ancient books, been damaged during its voyage over the seas of time? ought the same methods of textual criticism to be applied to it that are applied to the texts of other books? in the realm of the N.T. textual criticism as well as in other fields the presuppositions of modern thought are hostile to the historic Christian faith..." Hills solemn challenge reminds us that modern textual criticism is founded upon unbelieving principles. Though he himself was not a modernist, Tragelles adopted the theories of textual criticism from modernistic rationalists such as Lachmann and Griesbach. this remains true today. When a man goes to an Evangelical or Fundamentalist seminary and studies textual criticism, what Textbooks does he normally use? he will use books by Bruce Metzger, Frederic Kenyon, Kurt Aland, F.F. Bruce.. etc.. All of these men, and the overwhelming majority of other men who have developed the theories of modern textual criticism, are rationalists who deny the infallibility of the scriptures, who hold to heretical documentary views of the Old Testament, etc Evangelicals and Baptist who have promoted textual criticism did not develop it themselves, but merely recieved it from the hands of the Griesbachs, Kenyons, Metzgers, and Alands, and have passed it along as the most up to date scientific thought. most men who graduate from colleges and seminaries, while assuming they know both sides of the textual debate, only know one side. most have never read the works of John Burgon, Edward Miller, Edward Hills, Terrance Brown, Donald Waite, or other scholarly defenders of the King James Bible and the Received text. now for a look at the manuscripts preferred by the textual critics Codex Sinaiticus: it was found in a waste paper basket. Dr, James Qurollo observes "I don't know which of them had the truer evaluation of it's worth, Tischendorf who wanted to buy it, or the monks who were getting ready to burn it." it contained portions of the O.T. and the Apocrypha,the complete N.T. as well as the Epistle of Barnabas, and a fragment of the Shepherd of Hermas. Tischendorf was so enamored with this manuscript that he altered the 8th edition of his Greek text in 3,369 places. According to Scrivener "the codex is covered with alterations of an obviously correctional character-brought in by at least ten different revisers, some o them systematicall spread over ever page.." Codex Vaticanus: Found in the Vatican Library It's interesting to note that Both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have major disagreements with eachother in over 3,000 places in the Gospels alone. Hardly worth to be considered the "oldest and BEST" Wescott and Hort Were members of the 1881 Revision of the KJV, into what is now known as the R.V. They actually broke the rules for the translation, as it was only suppose to be a revision of the KJV, they went beyond this and totally changed the underlying Greek text. Wescott embraced the universal "fatherhood of God", denies that God had to be propitiated, taught that men could be divine in some way, espoused evolution, believed in man's perfectibility in the sense of denying man's sinfulness and depravity, denied that Heaven is a place and speaking of it as a 'state' (so did Hort), believed that Christ's redemptive work was to be found in his whole life, rather than his death, questioned the Pre-existence of the Lord Jesus Christ, him and Hort denied the Deity of Christ, He explained away some of the miracles of Christ, both him and Hort denied or gave a false meaning to the literal, bodily resurrection of Christ, and had false views of the vicarious, substitution atonement of Christ. Consider this quote from Alfred Martin "at precisely the time when liberalism was carrying the field in the English churches the theory of Wescott and Hort recieved wide acclaim. These are not isolated facts. Recent contributions on the subject- that is, in the present century-following mainly the Wescott-Hort principles and method, have been made largely by men who deny the inspiration of the Bible" What is the Wescott and Hort Theory? Terrence Brown: "What is wrong with the text underlying the modern versions? this text has been constructed in accordance with a theory that gives too much weight and authority to a small unrepresentative group of ancient documents headed by the Vatican Copy known as Codex B and the Sinai copy known as Codex Sinaiticus... The theory was developed by Wescott and Hort abd propounded in their Introduction to the Greek New Testament at the end of 22, Hort expressed his determination to overthrow that 'vile Textus Receptus'.. The theories of Wescott and Hort very largely shaped the text adopted by the 1881 revisers and influenced practically every subsequent translation on both sides of the Atlantic. Their problem was how to account for the dominance of the 'Majority Text' from the 4th Century onwards. Codex B and Codex Aleph were both written in the 4th Century, and if they present the text in it's purest form, how was it that it remained unrecognized until the middle of the 19th Century?.. Their theory was there must have been some kind of deliberate but misguided editorial revision of the Greek text, probably in Syria, possibly in Antioch, perhaps during the latter part of the 4th century.. according to this theory, this edited text was wrongly permitted to eclipse the 'pure text' exhibited by B and Aleph-until these documents were rehabilitated in the 19th century."