A122 e:A122 Kurt Aland 22/11/2007 13:03 Page 1 Dr Kurt Aland...What today's Christian needs to know...

What today's Christian needs to know about

Dr Kurt Aland Textual Critic

Exam

ple

of w

ords

om

itted

in t

he N

estle

/Ala

nd C

ritic

al T

ext

and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. John 6.51

Why are so many thousands of words like these being removed from our Bibles?

A122 e:A122 Kurt Aland 22/11/2007 13:03 Page 1


DR KURT ALANDTextual Critic


Product Code: A122

ISBN 978 1 86228 344 2

© 2007 Trinitarian Bible SocietyTyndale House, Dorset Road, London, SW19 3NN, UK

5M/12/07


DR KURT ALAND

1

Dr Kurt Aland is perhaps themost renowned Biblicaltextual critic of the 20th century. Born in

Berlin in 1915, he died in Münster/Westphalia in 1994. The most famousmodern English versions of the NewTestament—the Revised StandardVersion, the New American StandardVersion, the New International Version,and the English Standard Version—areall grounded on, and, for the most part,translated from, Dr Aland’s work. Thesetranslations utilise as their principaltext (with its critical apparatus andalternate readings) the United BibleSocieties version of the Greek NewTestament, a version over whichDr Aland was a principal editor. Indeed,the UBS version third edition (1983) isvirtually the same as Aland’s owntwenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Alandtext: such was his influence over theUBS text.1

The Nestle-Aland Greek 26th editionand the UBS 1966 and 1983 Greektexts differ widely from the common

Received Text which was used by allthe great translations of theReformation, including the AuthorisedVersion in the English language (alsoknown in some parts of the world asthe ‘King James Version’). Thus, theversions translated from this new‘critical’ text differ significantly fromour Authorised Version as well.

At present, the NIV and the ESV aresweeping evangelical churches in theUnited States and Britain. Thus,modern churchgoers are beingprofoundly influenced by Aland’s GreekText, and so also by his peculiar viewsof the text. This is because the veryverses that modern churchgoers arereading in their Bibles reflect thetheological and textual views ofDr Aland, which underlie his choices forreadings and variant readings for everyverse in the original Greek, from whichthese new versions are translated.

However, very few churchgoers evenknow the name of Dr Kurt Aland. Manyministers do—the Nestle-Aland text is


Textual Critic

by A. Hembd, MACSReformation International Theological Seminary

A consultant to the Society


The Doctrinal Views of…

2

the one that they buy when intheological seminary (as is required forstudents in Westminster TheologicalSeminary). They have heard in theirtext-critical classes of Dr Aland’sprowess as a scholar. Yet very fewministers know what Dr Aland’stheological views are concerning theinerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.

We come then to the point of thispaper, namely, to show concernedreaders what Kurt Aland’s theologicalviews are concerning Biblicalinspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility.

But first, we must lay down somefundamental premises. This paper isthe review of a Bible-believer, andunashamedly so. Accordingly, we arenot backward to affirm that, if we are tounderstand the text of the Old and NewTestaments, we must know what the Biblesays of itself. And so, we affirm that:

*We must believe that the Bible isthe inspired, inerrant Word of God,because the Bible itself says so.

*We must believe that Godpreserves His Word, by His HolySpirit, in the line of His trueChurch—again, because the Biblesays so.

We must believe that the Bible isthe inspired, inerrant Word ofGod, because the Bible says so.

*2 Timothy 3.16–17 ‘All scripture isgiven by inspiration of God, and isprofitable for doctrine, for reproof, forcorrection, for instruction inrighteousness: that the man of Godmay be perfect, throughly furnishedunto all good works.’

*Proverbs 30.5 ‘Every word of God ispure: he is a shield unto them that puttheir trust in him.’

How much of Scripture is inspired,inspired indeed by God? ‘All Scripture.’‘All scripture is given by inspiration ofGod.’ The original Greek word for‘inspired’ means ‘breathed out byGod’. All Scripture is breathed out byGod—every word of it. Accordingly, allScripture is as pure as God Himself.No abiding corruption can enter into it.Though mistakes have entered somecopies of the original language texts,though heretics have even mutilatedsome copies, yet, in the good Providenceof God, by the Holy Spirit, the trueChurch has been enabled always torecover the true reading from the copies.

Because Scripture is breathed out byGod, the man of God is ‘perfect’, or‘complete’. He is complete in that hehas need of no other reference.Obviously, he is not sinlessly perfect:‘…there is no man that sinneth not’(1 Kings 8.46). But he is ‘perfect’ inthis sense: he is perfectly furnishedwith all that he should ever need toknow, on this side of eternity, to equiphim for his ministry in this world—sothat, as we have said, he has need ofno other reference. Indeed, the onlyother references he may want to considerwould be good commentaries on theScripture itself, to help him understandthe Scripture better. But even thesecommentaries the man of God wouldread as subordinate to the inspiredScripture itself. Oh, the man of God iscomplete in his being throughly furnished,by the fully-inspired words of God!

The very thing that makes the man ofGod complete and throughly furnishedunto all good works is the verbal


…Dr Kurt Aland, Textual Critic

33

plenary inspiration of Scripture. If theScripture ceases to be inspired, andfully inspired in its every Word, then itis no longer reliable or profitable fordoctrine, for reproof, for correction, forinstruction in righteousness. The veryattribute of Scripture that makes itreliable and profitable for these thingsis its plenary inspiration, its purity, itsbeing ‘breathed out by God’.

Accordingly, the Scripture, indeed allScripture, is breathed out and inspiredby God still. The Scripture, every wordof it, is still profitable for doctrine, forreproof, for correction, for instruction inrighteousness: hence, it is alsoinspired still. Despite its being copiedby men, despite mistakes and errorshaving been introduced into some ofthe copies, yet, in the good Providenceof God by the Holy Spirit, the trueChurch has always been able torecover the original readings, so thatwe still have the inspired Word of God,infallible and inerrant.

There may be spelling or stylisticdifferences in some of the words ortheir forms in the present manuscripts,but the essential words, in all theirmeanings, are still there—the inspired,inerrant words of God. The Holy Spirit,in the Church, has helped the trueChurch always to recover and maintainthe true reading (Isaiah 59.21).

And how pure are the Words of God?Totally pure. ‘Every word of God ispure’, says Proverbs 30.5. ‘Every wordof God is pure: he is a shield untothem that put their trust in him’. Everyword of God is pure. It is pure still. It ispure, by the good Providence of God,preserving the inspired Word of God,for the man of God, so that he neednot have recourse to any other work—

so that by it, he may be madeprofitable to every good work. The goodProvidence of God has kept every wordof God pure.

‘He is a shield unto them that put theirtrust in him’, says Proverbs 30.5. Why?Because ‘every word of God is pure’.Take away the purity of every word, andGod is no longer a shield to the saints.

We must not doubt the purity of God’sWord, nor doubt His covenantfaithfulness to preserve it. He Whocannot lie promises to preserve HisWord; He promises to do so in thatvery Word. ‘All Scripture is breathed outby God.’ ‘Every word of God is pure.’ AsIsaiah 59.21 tells us, God’s inspiredwords, all of them, shall be preservedin the line of the true Church, for ever.

We must believe that Godpreserves His Word, by His Spirit,in the line of the true Church.

*Isaiah 59.20–21 ‘And the Redeemershall come to Zion, and unto them thatturn from transgression in Jacob, saiththe LORD. As for me, this is mycovenant with them, saith the LORD; Myspirit that is upon thee, and my wordswhich I have put in thy mouth, shall notdepart out of thy mouth, nor out of themouth of thy seed, nor out of themouth of thy seed’s seed, saith theLORD, from henceforth and for ever.’

The Lord says, ‘this is my covenantwith them’. With whom? With thosethat ‘turn from transgression in Jacob’.These would be those who know‘repentance unto life’— that savingwork of the blessed Holy Ghost—bythe Holy Spirit, convincing them of sin,righteousness, and judgment, and



44

savingly illuminating their minds withthe knowledge of the blessed Redeemerwho has come for them. With these,and these alone, God makes Hiscovenant. He sends the Redeemer toZion, for them, and for them alone.

And what is this covenant with them?The covenant is, that the spirit that isupon them, and the words that are intheir mouth, shall not depart out oftheir mouth, nor out of the mouth oftheir seed, nor their seed’s seed. Forhow long? ‘For ever.’

The Lord makes a covenant with HisZion, with those that turn fromtransgression in Jacob. His Spirit shallnot depart from them; neither will HisWords. God will preserve all His wordsfor them; ‘every word of God is pure’.Why? So that He may be a shield toHis saints, even by His Word. God willkeep all His Word, the Scriptures of oursalvation, inspired. Why? So that theman of God may be perfect, so that hemay be complete, so that he may bethroughly furnished unto every good work.

Indeed, this very promise is because ofthe Redeemer, spoken of in Isaiah59.20, Who is Christ Jesus our Lord,the Desire of all nations, that One whocomes to Zion. Because of Him, Godmakes this wonderful covenant.Indeed, we see in Hebrews 9.19 thatMoses sprinkled not only all thearticles of the tabernacle and thepeople, but yes, even the very book ofthe Law, the Word of God, with theblood. Hebrews 9.19 says, ‘For whenMoses had spoken every precept to allthe people according to the law, hetook the blood of calves and of goats,with water, and scarlet wool, andhyssop, and sprinkled both the book,and all the people’.

Moses sprinkled both the book and thepeople. Why? Because thisforeshadowed how that the blood ofChrist would be sprinkled on both thepeople of God and upon the very wordsof God that God would use to keepthem. In other words, Christ purchasedboth His people and the words of Godby His precious blood. When the bloodof Christ ceases to be efficacious, thenthe people of God can be lost. Whenthe blood of Christ is no longer livingand warm, then the purity of God’swords will be lost.

No, this can never be! Whatever theblood of Christ touches, it purchases.The blood of Christ has purchased thepurity of all the words of God in all ages,for you, for me, if we will but believe it.

Now, with whom is this promise made?With those that turn from transgressionin Jacob, and with their seed, and theirseed’s seed, even for ever. The Spiritwill continue with them. The efficacy ofthe blood of Christ will continue withthem. By the covenant of this blood,and the workings of the Holy Spirit, thistrue Church will be able to discern thewords of God in all ages; and by thegood Providence of God all His wordswill remain with them.

And thus, we should be looking to theoriginal language texts that have beenused by the historic true Church.

What we must look for in atextual critic

When we would evaluate the work of atextual critic—one who would compilea text of the original languages for theBible—we must look for a man whobelieves the things which we have just



5

discussed. He must believe that theBible is the Word of God, because‘every word of God is pure’. He mustbelieve that God has promised topreserve that Word pure, in every age.He must also believe that God will dothis in the line of the true Church.

An examination of Dr KurtAland’s views on theinspiration of the Bible

It can be rather difficult to find anythingthat openly displays Dr Aland’s viewsconcerning the inspiration, inerrancyand infallibility of the Scriptures. However,there are three little-known works of histhat are most revealing, two relativelyearly works, written in 1961 and 1962,and one later work, in 1985.

We address first the two earlier works.One is entitled ‘The Problem ofAnonymity and Pseudonymity inChristian Literature of the First TwoCenturies’, written in 1961.2 In thatbooklet, Dr Aland denies the apostolicauthorship of the Four Gospels, theCatholic Epistles, the Pastoral Epistles,and Hebrews. The other work isentitled The Problem of the NewTestament Canon, written in 1962.3 Inthis work, Dr Aland expresses hisdoubts as to the canonicity of severalNew Testament books.

Now, we must interject the following.With respect to the apostolicauthorship of the Four Gospels, thesebooks in their titles begin ‘The Gospelaccording to Matthew’ or ‘The Gospelaccording to Mark’, and so on. Thoughsome may question whether the titlesare inspired per se, yet we cannot denythat the titles of all the complete Greekmanuscripts of the New Testament

books, going back to the earliest oftimes, attribute the authorship of theGospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, andJohn, as did all the Church Fathersgoing back to the earliest ages of theChurch. (For more detail on thevariations that exist in the headings,and yet how they all attributeauthorship to the men, the authorrefers the reader to F.H.A. Scrivener’sexcellent work A Plain Introduction tothe Criticism of the NewTestament,1.65–71.)4 Thus, there reallyis no manuscript or patristic evidencewhatever, other than mere conjecture,that could merit Aland’s questioningwho authored them. Butunquestionably, a man who doubts thecanonicity of several books of theBible—specifically, 2 Peter, James, 1and 2 John, and Jude—cannot at allbelieve in Bible inerrancy. How can theBible be infallible, if it has severalbooks in it that do not belong there?

It may be asked, “But The Problem ofthe New Testament Canon was writtenin 1962. Did Dr Aland ever renouncethese views? And similarly with ‘TheProblem of Anonymity andPseudonymity’. That was written in1961. Did Aland renounce its views?”

No, he did not. Indeed, he had ampleopportunity to renounce these views inhis much later book entitled A Historyof Christianity, published in German in1980 and in English in 1985.5 In thisbook, Aland discusses his theoriesconcerning the origins and theevolution of the New Testament text,including the settling of the Canon andthe apostolic authorship of theGospels, the Catholic Epistles, andHebrews. Yet he says nothing in thatwork to renounce his former views. Tothe contrary, he cautiously confirms



66

them, even adding shockingly disdainful,higher critical views of the CatholicEpistles—James, Jude, 1 and 2 Peter,and 1, 2, and 3 John. We will discusswhat he says in A History of Christianitytoward the end of this paper.

Denying the canonicity of certain booksof the Bible is certainly the moreblatant of his errors. For that indeed isa denial of the verbal plenaryinspiration of Scripture itself. For thatreason, we shall begin by addressingDr Aland’s work concerning the Canon.After that, we shall address what hesays in ‘The Problem of Anonymity andPseudonymity in Christian Literature ofthe First Two Centuries’. Next, we shalladdress what he says in A History ofChristianity. Finally, at the end of thispaper, we shall evaluate the validity ofDr Aland’s work, in the light ofScripture, specifically, Isaiah 59.20–21.

We proceed now to examine TheProblem of the New Testament Canon.

The Problem of the NewTestament Canon

At the beginning of this work, KurtAland writes the following: ‘Thisbrochure embodies the text of a lecturewritten for the Second InternationalCongress on New Testament Studieswhich met at Christ Church, Oxford, inSeptember 1961’.6 The pamphlet,then, is a lecture that Dr Alanddelivered to a worldwide convention ofNew Testament scholars.

Just the title of the work is enough toraise eyebrows. The Problem of theNew Testament Canon? What ‘problem’?

For the reader not acquainted with theterm, ‘Canon’ means the listing of

books that should be included in theNew Testament. Dr Aland is in thispamphlet raising a question of whethernew books not included in the Bibleought to be included, and also ofwhether books now included should beexcluded. In the conclusion of hisbooklet, he does not advocate theinclusion of any new books, but heseriously advocates that we considerdropping 2 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation,Jude, and 2 and 3 John.

Says Dr Aland, pages 24–25:

In spite of all the imperfectionsand uncertainties which surroundthe formation of the Canon, wemust express our belief that thedecision of the early Churchcannot be bettered by anyextension. It cannot be said of asingle writing preserved to usfrom the early period of theChurch outside the NewTestament that it could properlybe added to-day to the Canon: arevision of the New TestamentCanon would be possible only bythe suppression of what was thenpronounced canonical, not byextending the Canon in anydirection of our choosing.[emphasis added]

In other words, he poses himself aconservative by saying somewhat‘cautiously’ that we ought not toadopt any new books. However, sayshe, we may well considering rejectingsome books. He later expresses hisview that the Epistles of Ignatiussurpass 2 and 3 John, Jude, and even2 Peter, thus implying, on pages 26–27,that 2 and 3 John, Jude, and 2 Peterare candidates for being dropped.He says:



77

The only group among theApostolic Fathers which, by theircontent and spiritual authority,tower far above the average, arethe Epistles of Ignatius. Certainlythey cannot bear comparison withthe Pauline Epistles, nor evenwith 1 Peter and 1 John. ButJude, 2 and 3 John, for example,even 2 Peter, are clearlysurpassed by them. [emphasisadded]

He elsewhere expresses his doubts asto the real canonicity of Hebrews andRevelation (pages 10–13) because oftheir relatively late acceptance—theEastern Church accepting Hebrews,and the Western Church acceptingRevelation—though Athanasiusaccepted both. Says Dr Aland:

The fifth stage of developmentlasts right through the third andinto the beginning of the fourthcenturies…with respect toHebrews and the Apocalypse, theEast and the West go separateways: the Eastern Churchrecognizes Hebrews, and rejectsthe Apocalypse, while theWestern does the exact reverseand, indeed, each area withastonishing unanimity. [p. 10]

Dr Aland then, on page 30, refers toLuther’s sad questioning of the booksof Hebrews, James, and Revelation,thus implying that a review ought to bemade by modern ecumenical councilsas to whether these books ought not tobe scrapped, too.

Before we continue further, we mustconsider for a moment, ‘What is theorthodox view of the Canon?’

The orthodox view of theformulation of the Canon

The orthodox view of the formulation ofthe Canon is wonderfully summarisedin Dr Edward Freer Hills’s famous book,The King James Version Defended. SaysDr Hills:

After the New Testament bookshad been written, the next step inthe divine program for the NewTestament Scriptures was thegathering of these individualbooks into one New TestamentCanon that they might take theirplace beside the books of the OldTestament Canon as theconcluding portion of God’s holyWord. Let us now consider howthis was accomplished under theguidance of the Holy Spirit.7[emphasis added]

Dr Hills then goes on to explain how allthe books of the New Testament weregathered and accepted by AD 200,except for 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter,Hebrews and Revelation. But then heshows how that, by the 4th century,also these books were universallyaccepted and questioned by very few;and thus the Canon was established,settled, and recognised, once for all.

Notice, too, that Hills specificallymentions the role of the Holy Spirit inguiding the Church infallibly, over time,to these conclusions.

And so, the orthodox view is that theCanon of the New Testament was fullysettled by the 4th century, never to bequestioned again. Yes, there was aperiod of some flux, though most ofthe books were unanimously acceptedby the end of the second century AD.



8

To some degree, the Romanpersecutions and the martyrdoms ofmany thousands of saints no doubtlimited the Church’s ability to reviewthe books thoroughly, as well aslimiting her ability to gather intoecumenical (i.e., ‘universal orthodox’)synods to come to a full, universalacceptance of the Canonical books.However, the Holy Spirit graduallyworked in the true Church so that, bythe fourth century AD, acceptance ofour present Canon was universal, notto be disputed again.

Indeed, the Canon must have beensettled. Why? Because, unless thebooks of the Bible are known, how canwe even know what the Word of God iswhich we are to believe, and what wordsare indeed the infallible and inerrantwords of God, which God intends tokeep pure in all ages? And if we cannotdiscern finally what constitute the realbooks of the Bible, how then can God’scovenant with His true Church befulfilled (Isaiah 59.20–21)?

Conclusions to be drawn fromAland’s comments thus far

Dr Aland does not agree with orthodoxdoctrine as to the New TestamentCanon which is so plainly set forth inall the Church confessions of theReformation, especially theWestminster Confession, chapter one,article eight. No, Dr Aland opines thatthere were numerous problems in theway that the Church gathered thebooks; that, in fact, the Church evengathered correct books, but for thewrong reasons—reasons which areunscientific and therefore patentlyfalse. We shall discuss these opinionsin greater detail in just a moment.

However, we may immediately come toa conclusion. Dr Aland does not believein the inspiration or infallibility ofScripture. How so? Well, if one believesthat there are whole books in the Biblethat do not belong there, then the Biblemust be full of uninspired words,inasmuch as there may be wholebooks in it that are uninspired, andwhich, in fact, should be deleted.

Moreover, if indeed the Bible hasuninspired books in it, then the HolySpirit must not have been the author ofthem, nor of the Bible as a whole; andtherefore there could also be historicaland doctrinal errors in the Bible. If inparticular the Catholic Epistles werenot written by the men who claim to bewriting them, then the Bible is indeedfull of historical errors. Yet this isprecisely what Dr Aland will affirm, aswe shall see, in ‘The Problem ofAnonymity and Pseudonymity’ and inA History of Christianity.

But the Bible itself confutes Dr Aland.Kurt Aland is not wiser than the Bible.The Bible says of itself that ‘every wordof God is pure’, that ‘all Scripture isbreathed out by God’, that God, in fact,would preserve it in every generation, forever—that He would keep His blessedHoly Spirit and His words in the trueChurch, with those who turn fromtransgression in Jacob. ‘My spirit that isupon thee, and my words which I haveput in thy mouth, shall not depart out ofthy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thyseed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’sseed, saith the LORD, from henceforthand for ever’ (Isaiah 59.21). Therefore,the Holy Spirit with the true Churchwould enable true believers, and notheretics, to discern the true words ofGod in every age, from amongst themultitude of copies which they possessed.



9

Church was working withinadequate standards ofdiscrimination. In view of this,the actual result of the Canoncan only astonish the observeragain and again. It remainsinexplicable if, behind thehuman activity and thequestionable standards of men,one does not presuppose thecontrol of the providentia Dei,the working of the Holy Spirit…[p. 14, emphasis added]

However, this is not an infallibleworking, according to Dr Aland, in thathe believes that very possibly, severalbooks should be deleted from theCanon!

Now, what are the ‘grave scientificerrors in external standards’ whichthe early Church Fathers committed?

For one, says Dr Aland, the ChurchFathers were mistaken about theapostolic authorship of some of thebooks. Says he, the Epistles ofIgnatius were not included in theCanon because they were notwritten by an apostle. But Jude andcertain books were admitted intothe Canon, because ‘supposedly’they were written by an apostle,when, in fact, they really were not.And thus, he argues for consideringdeleting them.

Says Dr Aland:

…[S]imply because of thisobvious lack of apostolicity noone even thought of acceptingthe Epistles of Ignatius into theCanon, whereas the Epistle ofJude (and others), because ofthe declaration of authorship

In short, Dr Aland does not believe theBible to be the Word of God.Accordingly, the promise of keepingGod’s words is not with him. Why?Because he is not of the true Church;he is not one who ‘turns fromtransgression in Jacob’. To thecontrary, he is an unbelieving sceptic.Nor is Dr Aland a divinely-appointedsteward or guardian of the holy Word oftruth. We must rather fear that he islikely to be an agent of the devil tocorrupt it. ‘He that is not with me isagainst me’ (Matthew 12.30).

Other grave errors in Aland’swork The Problem of the NewTestament Canon

We have mentioned already, in passing,how Dr Aland asserts in his pamphletthat, in some cases, the early ChurchFathers came to choose the rightbooks but on ‘erroneous premises’.

Says Dr Aland:

It cannot be gainsaid that theexternal standards which theearly Church applied incanonizing the New TestamentScriptures are, when looked atfrom the viewpoint of modernscientific knowledge, insufficientand frequently even wrong. Theviews accepted by the present-day New Testament critics onmatters of authorship or date ofthe New Testament Scripturesare, in many cases, different fromthose held in the early Church…[p. 14, emphasis added]

[I]t is clear as the noonday thateven in the previous age of theChurch [the third century] the



1010

which concealed the realsituation, presupposed anapostolic author, hence, as itscontents caused no scruples, itwas allowed to make its way intothe pale of the canonical books.[p. 27, emphasis added]

Obviously, with the words ‘whichconcealed the real situation’, Alandflatly denies that the Apostle Jude isthe real author of the book of Jude.With the words ‘others,’ he refers atleast also to 2 and 3 John, and2 Peter, which he had just said (in thesame paragraph) ‘were surpassed’ bythe Epistles of Ignatius.

So, Dr Aland denies that 2 and 3 John,Jude, and 2 Peter were really written bythose men.

Similarly, Dr Aland hints at his beliefthat the Four Gospels, noble as heconsiders them to be, were nonethelessnot written by the Apostles to whomthey were ascribed. He states that, inreality, those Gospels were compiledfrom a previous Gospel, and then, thesefour new versions were ‘distinguishedfrom each other by the names ofauthors’, hinting that the books werenot really written by those men.

We now quote Dr Aland again.

It is certain that in manycommunities there were, besidesone or more of the four Gospels,also apocryphal gospels in use,sometimes even in official use.The starting point must, however,generally have lain with oneGospel, which was the Gospel; theuse of several Gospels together(only now are they distinguishedfrom each other by the names of

authors, etc.) represents a laterstage… [p. 19, emphasis added]

So, Dr Aland posits, at first there existedwithin the Church the letters of Paul,and the ipsissima verba of Jesus (the‘very words’ of Jesus Himself). After thisevolved a single Gospel from which theFour Gospels and even the apocryphalgospels emerged. (And in the next workof his which we shall review, ‘TheProblem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity’,we shall see that he flatly denies thatthe Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Lukewere written by those men, and heexpresses his doubt that the Gospel ofJohn was written by John.)

The titles aside, the Pauline andCatholic Epistles, and the Gospel ofJohn, are quite specific as to whowrote them by the opening statementsmade within the Epistles themselves.Though there is some variation in theexact wording of the headings in theSynoptic Gospels, yet they all agreewith all the Church Fathers as to whowrote them. (As we’ve mentioned,Scrivener’s Plain Introduction explainssome of these variations.) There reallyis no reason why we should doubt theauthorship of the Synoptic Gospels;there is no manuscript or patristicevidence to the contrary. Much more isthe case with the Catholic Epistles, theEpistles of Paul, and the Gospel ofJohn. The internal evidence of thebooks themselves makes it beyonddoubt who the authors are. If we candoubt who wrote the Gospel of Johnand the Catholic Epistles, when thebooks themselves tell us who wrotethem, we may also doubt many of thefacts and doctrines within those books!

And so, we find in Dr Aland ascepticism approaching that of



11

Pontius Pilate, who said, ‘What istruth?’ He clearly doubts the Bible tobe the Word of God.

Belief in the Bible’s being the Word ofGod is an essential ingredient ofsaving faith. Some might say, ‘But weare only required to believe that Jesusdied for our sins, and that God raisedJesus from the dead’. But where doesthis belief come from? ‘Faith cometh byhearing, and hearing by the word ofGod’ (Romans 10.17). Yes, if weconfess with our mouths the LordJesus, and believe in our hearts thatGod raised Him from the dead, weindeed shall be saved: but whencecometh this faith? By hearing. Byhearing what? The Word of God. Notonly that: when we savingly hear theWord of God, we must know it to bethe Word of God—thence, inspired andinerrant. ‘For this cause also thank weGod without ceasing, because, when yereceived the word of God which yeheard of us, ye received it not as theword of men, but as it is in truth, theword of God, which effectually workethalso in you that believe,’ Paul says ofthe Thessalonians in 1 Thessalonians2.13. We must not only hear the Wordof God, we must receive it as being theWord of God, and not of men.

Accordingly, the WestminsterConfession of Faith is most correctwhen it says, in Chapter XIV, Article II,the following words:

By this faith, a Christian believethto be true whatsoever is revealedin the Word, for the authority ofGod himself speaking therein; andacteth differently, upon that whicheach particular passage thereofcontaineth; yielding obedience tothe commands, trembling at the

threatenings, and embracing thepromises of God for this life, andthat which is to come. But theprincipal acts of saving faith are,accepting, receiving, and restingupon Christ alone for justification,sanctification, and eternal life, byvirtue of the covenant of grace.

‘The Christian believeth to be truewhatsoever is revealed in the Word, forthe authority of God Himself speakingtherein.’ Yes, ‘the principal acts ofsaving faith are accepting, receiving, andresting upon Christ alone forjustification, sanctification, and eternallife’, but also, the true Christian mustbelieve ‘to be true whatsoever isrevealed in the Word’. He must receivethe Word of God as it is: not the word ofmen, but the Word of God. It necessarilyfollows, then, that the true believerbelieves the Bible is the infallible,inerrant Word of God. Dr Aland, with hisdenials that certain books belong in theBible, clearly does not believe this.

Dr Aland, with his unbelief andblasphemous accusations of errors inthe Word of God, clearly manifestshimself not to be of the line of the trueChurch, of those who ‘turn fromtransgression in Jacob’, of those who‘have the Spirit of God in their mouths’,by drinking Him in with an upright faithin Christ the Redeemer. And so, such aman cannot, according to the Bible,have either the covenant of grace northe grace in his soul to discern theWords of God.

Dr Aland’s influence on theNew International Version

Dr Aland’s pernicious views of theunreliability of our Bibles in the original



1212

manuscripts is profoundly seen in theNIV Bible. The same hand that wouldexcise whole books of the Bible fromour Canon would also excise many,many texts.

For this reason, in the earlier editionsof the NIV we find statements like thisone which is printed at the beginning ofJohn 8:

The earliest and most reliablemanuscripts and other ancientwitnesses do not haveJohn 7:53–8:11.8

These words echo Dr Aland’s words inhis magnus opus entitled The Text ofthe New Testament, written incollaboration with his wife Barbara, andtranslated into English by Erroll F.Rhodes.9 In that work, page 232, wefind the following explanation for theuse of brackets in the footnotes of theUBS and Nestle-Aland Greek texts:

Words enclosed in singlebrackets [ ] have only a dubiousclaim to authenticity as part ofthe original New Testamentwritings. A text enclosed indouble brackets [[ ]] is clearly notpart of the original text; e.g.,however early the tradition of thepericope of the Woman Taken inAdultery [in John 7:53–8:11] maybe, it is certain that these versesdid not form a part of the originaltext of the gospel of John when itwas first circulated in the Church.[emphasis added]

How does Dr Aland come to thisconclusion? We may see from hisnotes on John 7.53–8.11, found in thefirst edition of the United BibleSocieties’ Greek text (1966).10 In this

text we find the following footnote onpage 355:

12 7:53-8:11 {A} omit 7:53-8:11(see p 413) p66, 75 ℵ Avid B Cvid…

To explain the above footnote briefly,what Dr Aland is saying is, ‘The followingearly texts omit John 7.53–8.11, and wegive those readings an {A} reading’.(He refuses even to consider evaluatingthe other reading, which he considersspurious.) The {A} means, ‘We believethis to be the true reading, withvirtually absolute certainty’. Aland thenlists p66 and p75, two early papyrusmanuscripts found in upper Egypt byMartin Bodmer—in the same areawhere the infamous Gnostic library ofthe Nag Hammadi cave wasdiscovered. (Upper Egypt was infestedwith Gnostics.) Aland then also lists ℵor Sinaiticus, a manuscript so calledbecause it was discovered byConstantin von Tischendorf (a textualcritic who also was a heretic) ‘on ashelf’, unused, in a monastery inMount Sinai. Aland proceeds to list ‘A’,which is Codex Alexandrinus, amanuscript that Theodore Beza of theReformation in Geneva had, but whichhe rejected along with the rest of theReformers, because of thatmanuscript’s many historical andgrammatical errors. Aland then alsolists ‘B,’ which is Codex Vaticanus,which was for centuries in the Vatican,and which was known of by Erasmus,the compiler of the first versions ofTextus Receptus. Erasmus rejectedVaticanus out of hand as corrupt.11After ‘B’, Dr Aland lists ‘C’, which isCodex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus, socalled because it also contains a Greektranslation of thirty-eight sermons byan early Church Father named Ephraemof Syria. This manuscript is similar to



13

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. After these,Aland lists a number of manuscriptsthat follow in the textual tradition ofthese aforecited ones.

To summarise then: the texts on whichDr Aland relies were rejected by thehistoric Church because of their knownpoor quality (high number of spellingand historical errors), or their knownparentage from texts that had beencorrupted by heretics (as were the so-called Alexandrian texts, which camefrom upper Egypt, where the Gnosticerrorists proliferated). These texts,rejected by the historic Church, are theones that Dr Aland relies upon.

Also, Dr Aland himself admits that hesystematically rejected all texts of theByzantine tradition—the tradition fromwhich Textus Receptus arose. On pagexvii of the ‘Introduction’ to the UBS textof 1966, we find the following note:

The following minuscules,selected after a criticalexamination of more than onethousand manuscripts, have beencited systematically because theyexhibit a significant degree ofindependence from the so-calledByzantine manuscript tradition.[emphasis added]

In other words, all minuscule (small-letter) Greek manuscripts that had anymarks of being in the Byzantinetradition were intentionally omittedfrom consideration. And yet, all thesemanuscripts, which comprise theoverwhelming majority of the Greekmanuscripts in existence, containJohn 7.53–8.11.

A thorough examination of why the‘variant manuscripts’ primarily taken

from Egypt should be looked ataskance—because of the knowncontamination they had from heretics ofthe time—exceeds the scope of thispaper. However, suffice it to say weshould not find it surprising that a manwho himself does not believe in theinerrancy and infallibility of Scriptureshould himself choose manuscriptsfrom areas where heretics were knownto have the ascendancy, as his basisfor excising passages from the Biblethat were long recognised by the truehistoric Church. John 7.53–8.11 wasindeed recognised by the historicChurch for ages, it being included in thevast majority of the extant Greekmanuscripts and being included also inthe common Received Text which wasused by the Reformers. The same handthat would delete inspired books fromour New Testament Canon, will alsodelete Providentially Preserved texts!

We now proceed to examine Dr Aland’s1961 work entitled ‘The Problem ofAnonymity and Pseudonymity inChristian Literature of the First TwoCenturies’. This little article may befound in The Authorship and Integrity ofthe New Testament: some recentstudies by Kurt Aland, et al, publishedby S.P.C.K. in 1965. (The articleoriginally was published in the Journalof Theological Studies, N.S., Vol. XII, Pt. I,April, 1961.)

‘The Problem of Anonymity andPseudonymity in ChristianLiterature of the First TwoCenturies’

In this work, Dr Aland drawsconclusions as to the originalauthorship of several New Testamentbooks, based on his studies of certain



14

early Egyptian papyri and upon hisinferences which he draws from thegenuine problems of the authorship ofcertain patristic and apocryphal works.(There were indeed many spuriousworks of that period that claimed tohave been written by the apostles.However, Aland infers from this thatalso certain books of the NewTestament were not written by the menwhose names appear in the titles, butrather, they were written by men usingpseudonyms.) But before we proceedto Dr Aland’s views, let us look at theorthodox view of the authorship of theFour Gospels, from Edward Hills’sfamous book, Believing Bible Study,published by Christian Research Pressin 1967. On page 34 of that book,Dr Hills correctly states:

When the time approached, inthe plan of God, for the oralGospel to be set down in writing,Matthew, an Apostle, and Markand Luke, followers andcompanions of the Apostles, wereinspired by the Holy Spirit toperform the task. The Gospelwhich these three evangelistswrote down was the same oralGospel which had been preachedeverywhere, and was expressedin the same familiar words. This,we may well believe, is why thewritten Gospels of Matthew,Mark, and Luke agree together soclosely in wording and in subjectmatter. At the same time,however, there were differences.Matthew wrote down the Gospelas he remembered it. Thoseother Apostles from whom Markand Luke received theirinformation remembered theGospel in a somewhat differentway. This is one reason why the

three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew,Mark, and Luke) differ from eachother on a number of particulars.Another reason for thesedifferences is that each of theseinspired evangelists wrote fromhis own point of view andaccording to his own literary plan.But these differences are notcontradictions. By faith we knowthat the Holy Spirit does notcontradict Himself and that if atany point we are unable toharmonize the several Gospelnarratives with each other it isbecause some fact has escapedus or has not been revealed.12

In addition to those deeds andwords of Jesus which all theApostles were able to rememberand which formed the substanceof the oral Gospel and of Matthew,Mark, and Luke, the first threewritten Gospels, there weredeeper elements in the teachingof our Lord which were retainedmainly in the sensitive mind ofJohn, ‘the disciple whom Jesusloved.’ For many years the ApostleJohn meditated privately on thesesublime discourses of the Saviour.Finally, in his old age he wasinspired by the Holy Spirit to addhis Gospel to the other three…13

Dr Hills proceeds on page 35 to specifyhow likewise the Catholic Epistles, andall the epistles of Paul, were thenwritten by the very apostles whosenames appear in those inspired books.

We have seen how Dr Hills asserts (andrightly so) that the authors of the FourGospels were indeed those whosenames appear in the titles of thoseinspired books. And what does Dr Hills



15

say of those who say otherwise? Let ussee how he addresses the notion thatthe Apostle John was not the author ofthe Gospel of John, from The King JamesVersion Defended, pages 69–70 (again,published by Christian Research Press).

The most common hypothesis,however, among naturalistic criticsis that the Gospel of John waswritten not by the Apostle Johnbut by another John called theElder John, who lived at Ephesusat the end of the first century A. D.and who also wrote the Epistlesof John. This would make theGospel of John a forgery, since itclaims to have been written by thedisciple whom Jesus loved(John 21:24), that intimatefollower who beheld Christ’s glory(John 1:14), who leaned on hisbosom (John 13:23), and whoviewed with wondering eye theblood and water flowing downfrom his riven side (John 19:35).14[emphasis added]

In other words, anyone who would saythat the Gospel of John was not writtenby the Apostle John, would make thatinspired book a forgery, given theinternal claims to the contrary.

And indeed it would be. If this authorwere to write this present work, andthen subscribe with Edward Hills’sname, would it not be a forgery? Itwould: a most dishonourable andunethical forgery at that!

We may not believe that the Holy Spiritis the author of lies. No, the Spirit ofGod is emphatically the Spirit of truth:John 14.17, John 15.26, John 16.13,and 1 John 4.6. Indeed, John 16.13specifically tells us, ‘Howbeit when he,

the Spirit of truth, is come, he willguide you into all truth’. The Spirit ofGod is a Spirit of truth, who only leadshis disciples into the truth. This wasespecially so with the inspired apostlesand evangelists who penned the booksof the New Testament. The Spirit ofGod would never inspire a man to signor inscribe a book with a pseudonym.Nor would the Spirit of God, whopromised to remain with the trueChurch for ever, allow the Church tocorrupt the words of God, so that theyshould ascribe a book to a falseauthor. Rather, Isaiah 59.21 tells usthat the Spirit of God, and God’s words,would remain with His true Church, forever. Accordingly, the true Church wouldnot willingly contaminate the text; andany unintentional corruptions, by theHoly Spirit working in Christ’s Churchwould also be found out and purged.

But what does Kurt Aland say on thismatter? We proceed by examining‘The Problem of Anonymity andPseudonymity in Christian Literature ofthe First Two Centuries’.

Kurt Aland on the authorshipof the Four Gospels

On page 5 of this work, Dr Aland saysthe following:

Let us start with anonymousliterature. In my opinion, it isbeyond doubt that all the gospelswere published anonymously. Ourpresent opinion about theirauthors dates from informationwhich derives from the time ofPapias or later. Not only the fourcanonical ones, but also the othergospels of the earlier period werenot thought of as ‘the gospel of



16

Mark,’ ‘the gospel of Matthew,’and so on, but, in their originalhome, as ‘the gospel.’ The morethe individual gospels woncommon acknowledgement, andthe more numerous they were inany one place, the more it provednecessary to differentiate betweenthem (or to combine them into, forinstance, a Diatessaron, as didTatian). All the titles andsubscriptions in the gospelmanuscripts are of a later period.And it is no evidence against thisthat Papyrus Bodmer II (around 200)has the inscription: ��

��. It belongs to thetime after Papias, when not onlywere the gospels fully distinguished,but also certain traditions hadachieved their developed form.[emphasis added]

To summarise what Dr Aland has said,we may say:

1. He claims that all four‘gospels’ [sic] were anonymous,and as such, their true authorscan never be known.

2. He says that certain earlymanuscripts of the NewTestament did not have the titleswe have today in them, and thattherefore, none of themanuscripts of those early times did.

3. He claims that ‘certaintraditions’ arose in the Churchlater, and these were used, out ofexpediency, to differentiate eachof the ‘gospels’ from oneanother, as, in time, they werespread out of their originallocalities.

4. It only follows from this line ofthinking that Dr Aland believes thatthe historic Church corrupted theFour Gospels, by adding their titlesto them. Even though the titles varyin their wording, from manuscript tomanuscript, yet they all attributetheir authorship to the same men.Yet Aland says that these were notthe men who wrote these works.

Let us now examine Dr Aland’s claims.In the first place, we must takeexception to his irreverence in referringto the Gospels as ‘gospels’, with alower case g. But in the second place,we must scrutinise his claim that noneof the early manuscripts had their titlesin them.

On what ground does Aland base hisclaim? Well, prior to Papias, who livedin the second century AD and likelydied before AD 150, ‘there were notitles in the manuscripts of thatperiod’. Keep in mind that Papias,according to church history, was anactual hearer of the Apostle Johnhimself. Most accounts consider him tohave been born before Polycarp, whichwould have been before AD 67,according to most accounts. Thismeans Dr Aland is consideringScripture manuscripts that were writtenwell before 200. Oh? How manymanuscripts do we have extant frombefore AD 150?

Using Dr Aland’s own listing of texts inUBS 1966, there may be threemanuscripts extant from Papias’s time:p46, p66 and p67. And even thesemanuscripts UBS 1966 dates ataround AD 200, after Papias. Threemanuscripts: do these represent astatistically significant sampling of themanuscripts of the period? (We must



1717

note that even p66 has for its title ‘TheGospel according to John’, as Alandhas already admitted. p66 is the samemanuscript as Bodmer Papyrus II.)

Suppose you were a heart patient.Would you want to take a newlypatented heart medicine that had beentested using only three people? Orsuppose you were a businessman.Would you want to predict marketingtrends for your new product, based ona survey of three people?

I think not. Then why should standardsfor research studies be lower forexamining texts of the Holy Writ?

Also to be considered is this fact: allthree of the above-mentionedmanuscripts are from the samelocale—upper Egypt, not far from theNag Hammadi cavern—where a Gnosticlibrary was uncovered. Certainly, wewould not want to take a new heartmedicine, if we were a heart patient,that had only been tested on threemembers of the same family! Why, no!They may have dramatically differentgenetics than we have. We may sufferharmful side effects that they wouldn’tbecause of their genetic makeup.

So also with the three manuscriptsunder consideration. They all camefrom a certain ‘family’. They all camefrom Upper Egypt, an area known to beheavily infested with Gnostics andGnostic literature. And we know fromthe early Church Fathers that hereticsof that period, especially the Gnostics,hewed and hacked the Scriptures. Oneonly need read Irenaeus and Tertullianfor confirmation of this.

Moreover, there would unquestionablyhave been tens of thousands of

manuscripts in the Christian world atthe time, because, indeed, there werewell over a million, or perhaps, millions,of Christians. It is not at all responsibleto make conclusions from such astatistically insignificant sampling asthree manuscripts out of tens ofthousands.

Nor is it advisable to base ourconclusions upon how certain veryearly Church Fathers may have referredto the Gospels. Again, we have veryfew writings of any Church Fathersfrom that early period: only three orfour, in fact.

So Dr Aland’s assertion that ‘none ofthe early manuscripts of the period hadthe titles and subscriptions in them’ isuntenable. He cannot prove this. Threemanuscripts and three or four earlyChurch Fathers prove nothing,especially when one of the threeearliest manuscripts, a copy of theGospel of John, indeed has the title‘The Gospel according to John’ in it.

Moreover, with respect to the earliestChurch Fathers—the so called‘Apostolic Fathers’—none of them denythat the Four Gospels were written byMatthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Rather,the writings we have of these simplydon’t reference the Four Gospels.Three of the early Fathers to whichAland refers are Clement of Rome,Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp ofSmyrna. In the only written work wehave of Polycarp, Polycarp liberallyquotes from the Epistle of Paul to thePhilippians, but he does not cite theFour Gospels. Ignatius mainly appealsto the authority of the local bishops.Clement mainly appeals to the OldTestament and to natural reasoning.However, we only have a total of about



18

eleven works from these men, plus twoor three anonymous works like TheShepherd of Hermas and the Epistle toDiognetus.

Moreover, beginning with Papias, a littleafter AD 100, and especially withIrenaeus, at around AD 180 (AdversusHaereses III,1.1), we find all the earlyFathers saying, to the man, that theFour Gospels were indeed written bythe men whose names appear in thetitles of those books.

Though the titles themselves vary intheir words, particularly in Matthew,Mark, and Luke, yet they allunanimously agree as to whom theauthors are. There is really nomanuscript or patristic evidence thatwarrants Dr Aland’s overturning thelongstanding, generally held view.

As we proved from Dr Hills, to claimthat the Gospel of John was writtenby another would make that work aforgery. This is especially so with theGospel of John, which suppliesconsiderable internal evidence as toits author. Its author, as Hills notes,was one who was present with theLord at the Last Supper, who was aneyewitness of the Lord’s sufferings onthe cross, and who was present whenthe Lord manifested himself to theapostles when they had been fishing,in John 21. Yet, as we shall see,Aland will later specifically claim inhis History of Christianity that theGospel of John was not written by theApostle John.

But now we proceed to examineDr Aland’s claims that the PastoralEpistles and the Catholic Epistles werewritten under ‘pseudonyms’.

Dr Aland’s claim that theCatholic and Pastoral Epistleswere written by pseudonymousauthors examined

On page 4 of ‘Anonymity andPseudonymity’, Dr Aland says:

To the category of pseudonymouswritings I would like to ascribe:the Pastorals, 1 and 2 Peter,James, Jude, possibly Hebrews,2 and 3 John, possibly the gospelof John, the Didache, and thenon-anonymous New Testamentapocrypha. Whether or not wehave to assign the epistles to theColossians and to the Ephesiansto this category is controversial.

(A ‘pseudonymous’ writing would beone that was written by an author whowas using a false name, a name thatwas not his own. Aland is here claimingthat the authors of the Pastorals, 1 and2 Peter, James, Jude, 2 and 3 John andpossibly Hebrews, were not written bythe apostles whose names appear inthe titles of the books, nor by the menprofessing to have written them in theopening verses, but that these epistleswere rather written by other men, whofeigned being those other men.)

On page 6 he continues his discourseon pseudonymous writings. In thissection, he explains his hypothesis asto why these writings came to be. Hesays that the writer, an anonymouswriter, was ‘under the power of theSpirit’, and because of this, it could besaid that it was not he, but Christ andthe apostles preaching through him.Thus, Aland opines, it was actuallylegitimate for the man, a non-apostle,to subscribe an apostle’s name to his



19

work. He begins by explaining histheory for the origin of the Didache, aspurious work. He then applies thattheory also to the Pastorals and2 Peter, and even opines that thistheory may also apply to the author ofthe ‘gospel’ of John.

Here are Dr Aland’s words:

Let us now come to the group ofpseudonymous writings. It will besuitable to begin with the mostextreme example, the Didache,for it does not claim theauthorship of one apostle, but ofthe whole assembly of apostlesand of the Lord himself… Neitherthe locality nor the exact date (wetake the date to be about 110) ofthe genesis of the Didache isimportant in this regard; not eventhe form of its text in detail or itspossibly different forms. Theheart of the matter is the claimof the writing and its acceptancein the Church as an authoritativedocument… The only conceivablehypothesis is that the author ofthe writing introduced it [theDidache] first into his owncongregation, probably by readingit in the service of worship.Indeed, the congregation knewthat its address was written by itselder. But when he claimed hiswork to be the message of theLord through the apostles, andwhen his own congregation, andthe neighboring congregationacknowledged this to be valid,they did this only because it wasbut the written version of whathitherto had been orally deliveredin any congregational meeting; aprophet got up and preached theword of the Lord. Everyone knew

the prophet and his humanaffairs. But when he spoke withinspired utterance it was not hethat was heard but the Lord orthe apostles or the Holy Spirit…[emphasis added]

Now before we proceed, let ussummarise what Aland is saying here.He is saying that the writer of theDidache, and others like him, were menknown to all—but when they spoke asprophets, under divine inspiration, itwas no longer they that spoke, but theLord or the apostles through them.This then, in Aland’s strange view,justified and vindicated their signingthe document with the name of one ofthe apostles, or of all the apostles, oreven of the Lord Himself.

Of course, this is not at all the doctrineof Scripture, because all acknowledgethe epistles of Paul to Corinth, Galatiaand Rome to have been epistlesactually written by him. In each ofthose epistles, Paul specifically saysthat it is he, and not some otherapostle, who is writing. Paul wouldnever sign one of his epistles withPeter’s name, or with the name of anyother apostle. No, he specificallywarned the disciples not to be deceivedby epistles as though by him.

In 2 Thessalonians 2.1–2, Paulspecifically warns the disciples: ‘Nowwe beseech you, brethren, by thecoming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and byour gathering together unto him, that yebe not soon shaken in mind, or betroubled, neither by spirit, nor by word,nor by letter as from us, as that the dayof Christ is at hand’.

Again, Paul always certified his ownauthorship of his epistles, with remarks



20

as these: 1 Corinthians 16.21 ‘Thesalutation of me Paul with mine ownhand’; or, again, Colossians 4.18 ‘Thesalutation by the hand of me Paul.Remember my bonds. Grace be withyou. Amen’. It is commonly understoodthat Paul personally handwrote thatsalutation into the epistle, that itsreaders could then ascertain Paul’sown personal handwriting. Of course,when the amanuensis of the epistlealso personally carried the epistle tothe congregation to whom it waswritten, he also would confirm that Paulindeed had written those words, andthat Paul indeed had dictated theentire epistle.

In summary, then, Paul always certifiedthat the letters he was sending wereindeed by him, and by no forger. He didthis by writing a personal handwrittensalutation in the letters, in thepresence of those eyewitnesses whowould bring the letter to the church towhich it was written. In all cases,eyewitnesses of Paul’s writing the letterwere the ones who delivered it.

Indeed, Paul’s hearers would have beenlooking for such confirmations, giventhat Paul had specifically warned hishearers not to be deceived by ‘letter asfrom us’ (2 Thessalonians 2.2)—Paul’ssalutation with his own hand was ‘thetoken in every epistle’ (3.17).

Nor can we accept Aland’s view that aman’s being inspired by the Spiritwould justify his signing another man’sname to his inspired document; not atall. Paul did not do this, and he wascertainly under the inspiration of theSpirit. The Spirit is a Spirit of truth, whoguides Christian believers into theknowledge of the truth, including whowrote the epistle that they were

reading. The Holy Spirit of God wouldnever inspire a man to forge thesignature of another to his owndocument; neither would he ‘inspire’ aman to feign being another famousman while writing a text.

Of course, it was the Church’sdiscerning that the Didache had notbeen written by an apostle that causedthem to reject it from the Canon.

But Aland does not acknowledge this,because he does not know ‘thescriptures, neither the power of God’(Mark 12.24). He continues on page 8:

When the pseudonymous writingsof the New Testament claimed theauthorship of the most prominentapostles only, this was not askillful trick of the so-called fakers,in order to guarantee the highestpossible reputation and the widestpossible circulation for their work,but the logical conclusion of thepresupposition that the Spirithimself was the author of thework. [emphasis added]

Notice carefully the words ‘when thepseudonymous writings of the NewTestament claimed the authorship ofthe most prominent apostles’. What heis saying here is that there are booksin our New Testament which werewritten by pseudonymous authors,writers forging the name of an apostleas being the author of the work. Alandproceeds to state openly that thePastorals and 2 Peter werepseudonymous works.

So, he says on page 9:

It is much more difficult toanswer some other questions



21

which may be illustrated by thePastorals and 2 Peter. Let usremember the hypothesis weproposed above: viz. a writer,being nothing but the tool of theHoly Spirit, on this account claimsthe authorship of an apostle forhis writings. Is it conceivable thatsuch a writer extends theidentification so far that he evenfurnishes data on the concretesituation as is done in thePastorals, or that, like the writerof 2 Peter, he can casually usereferences from 1 Peter?… Butthe information about the sojournof the various coworkers in thefourth chapter of 2 Timothy, thefirst trial of Paul, the instructionsfor the addresses, as well as theend of the epistle to Titus toevince such a thoroughknowledge, such a stimulatedperspective, and such areconstruction of Paul’s affairs,that we cannot avoid assumingan intended forgery[sic]…[emphasis added]

So here we have it. Dr Aland declaresthat the Pastorals and 2 Peter arepseudonymous. Not only that, thewriters went to extravagant lengths tosupply details to make themselvesappear actually to be Peter or Paul! Andnot only that: ‘We cannot avoidassuming an intended forgery’, he says.

In the rest of the document, Dr Alandnowhere negates these statements asto these epistles being intendedforgeries, as not really being what heintended to say! Quite to the contrary,he concludes the document by saying,

We must not forget that all ofthese pseudonymous writings—

except perhaps the second andthird epistles of John—obviouslydo not bear the name of anapostle without reason. Theunknown men by whom they werecomposed, not only believedthemselves to be under the signof the Holy Spirit; they reallywere. [emphasis added]

In other words, it was the Spirit of Godthat inspired the unknown writers ofthe Pastorals and of 2 Peter to addfactual details to heighten the illusionthat it was really indeed Paul and Peterwho had penned these works! Andwhy? Because they believedthemselves to be under the sign of theSpirit, and they were! This makes theHoly Spirit of God a lying Spirit. What awicked blasphemy!

We see that Dr Aland not only deniedthe inspiration, inerrancy, andinfallibility of Scripture in his earlyworks, he also held to very dangerouserrors concerning the Holy Spirit andHis work.

But now we proceed to examineAland’s later work, published in 1980in German and in 1985 in English:A History of Christianity. Certainly ifDr Aland had come to a better mind, heshould have done so by then.

A History of Christianity byKurt Aland

This book was published in Germanwithin the last fourteen years of DrAland’s life. It was published in Englishin 1985, just nine years before hisdecease. Although he modifies hisgrounds for his views in maybe one ortwo minor points, yet we find him,



22

overall, holding tenaciously to the viewsformerly expressed.

We shall discuss what he says inA History of Christianity with regard totwo points in particular: 1) thecanonicity of the Catholic Epistles, and2) the apostolic authorship of the FourGospels, the Pastoral and CatholicEpistles, and even some of the lettersof Paul.

First, with respect to the canonicity ofthe Catholic Epistles, though, in thiswork Aland does not advocate outrightconsidering their deletion from theCanon, as he openly did before in TheProblem of the New Testament Canon,yet he more openly expresses hisrelative disdain for them.

Aland’s contempt for theCatholic Epistles

Before we proceed directly to Aland’sremarks on the Catholic Epistles, welead into it with his comments on theapostolic authorship of New Testamentbooks in general, and whether he evendeems that relevant or not. He says:

We need only observe the courseof church history during the lastcenturies where we will find withclarity the devastatingconsequences that result fromusing such inappropriate criteria.[p. 105]

Now before we proceed, we must askwhat ‘inappropriate criteria’ are they towhich Aland refers? Why, it’s theapostolic authorship of the books ofthe New Testament! We see this inwhat follows in the next sentences,where he says:

It [using inappropriate criteria]began in the time of Orthodoxy,repeated itself in a new way inthe nineteenth century, andcontinues to our own day: the‘genuineness’ of thestatements—the authority of theNew Testament—had as itspresupposition the fact that herapostles and eyewitnesses werespeaking. [p. 105, emphasisadded]

Aland proceeds in the nextsentences openly to sneer at such asuggestion:

As soon as critical scholarshipproved that this or that NewTestament writing could not havebeen written by an apostle, theauthority of its author collapsedalong with it; and with theauthority of the author, theauthority of the New Testamentwriting collapsed along with it;and with the authority of the NewTestament writing collapsed theauthority of the Church… Ofcourse, the genuine foundation offaith was not disturbed, but only afalse foundation—nevertheless, afalse foundation which theChurch had proposed as thegenuine one… [emphasis added]

Aland goes on to assert what he seesas the folly of assuming the apostolicauthorship of the New Testamentwritings by attempting to prove itsabsurdity from the Catholic Epistles.Says he:

If the catholic epistles were reallywritten by the apostles whosenames they bear and by peoplewho were closest to Jesus (by



23

James, the brother of the Lord; byJude, James’s brother; by theprince of the apostles, Peter; byJohn, the son of Zebedee; if theGospel of John was really writtenby the beloved disciple of Jesus),then the real question arises: wasthere really a Jesus? Can Jesusreally have lived, if the writings ofhis closest companions are filledwith so little of his reality? Thecatholic epistles, for example,have so little in them of thereality of the historical Jesus andhis power, that it suffices forJames, for example, to mentiononly Christ’s name in passing…

When we observe this—assumingthat the writings about which weare speaking really come fromtheir alleged authors—it almostthen appears as if Jesus were amere phantom and that the realtheological power lay not withhim, but with the apostles andwith the earthly church…’[p. 106, emphasis added]

To the writer of this tract, thefoolishness of these statementsalmost equals the wickedness of theirblasphemies. The epistles of Peterpaint Christ as a mere phantom? Thelife of Christ expressed in the preceptsof James had to have been written by aman who really didn’t know Christ atall? These statements are not onlywicked; they are downright strange.

How can a man who holds the inspiredCatholic Epistles in such contempt,making such derogatory statements asthese, really believe that they are indeedthe inspired, inerrant Word of God, thatmerit a place in the inspired Canon? Hesimply cannot. The Kurt Aland of 1985

is the same Kurt Aland of 1961 and1962, only worse.

Certainly Aland’s entirely subjectivecondemnation of the Catholic Epistlesreveals him for what he is: a Germanhigher critic. He is a higher critic whouses subjective reasoning to adduce,in his opinion, how the text wascreated and transmitted. Specifically,he makes subjective assessments ofthose Epistles, to adduce that theycould not have been written by theeyewitnesses of the Lord, becausethey demonstrate so little of thehistoric Christ and His power. Accordingly,he infers they were not written bythose eyewitnesses, but by other menwho forged the names of the apostlesto their texts. Clearly, in A History ofChristianity Aland still holds to hisblasphemous notions which heexpressed in his earlier work, ‘TheProblem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity’:that men, under the power of some‘spirit’, forged the names of apostlesto their works because they werespeaking as the apostles did (thoughnot in their original power andexperimental knowledge).

We have already seen that Alanddoubts the apostolic authorship of theGospel of John in the passage quotedabove. He was so bold as to say: ‘(…ifthe Gospel of John was really written bythe beloved disciple of Jesus), then thereal question arises: was there really aJesus?’ It is astounding to this authorthat Dr Aland can even dare to statethat the Gospel of John paints thehistorical Christ as a mere phantom,but he is bold and shameless to do so,is he not? But now, we briefly considerremarks proving his scepticism withregards to the apostolic authorship ofall the Gospels.



24

In the passage below, Aland condemnstwo notions. He condemns the highercritical notion that the Four Gospelswere written in the second century. Buton the other hand, he condemns thenotion that the Four Gospels wereindeed written by the four evangelistswhose names appear in the titles ofthose books. Says he:

Thus Mark’s Gospel was writtenshortly before the year 70, andMatthew’s Gospel not too longafterward. Luke’s Gospeloriginated shortly before 80(prudent scholarship will notallow us to date it very muchlater), and John’s Gospel belongsto the time around A.D. 90–95.The late dating of these Gospelsfar into the second century(which used to be considered up-to-date and by which peoplejudged a theologian’s‘scholarship,’ just as people onthe other side measured atheologian’s piety by whether heheld the names ascribed to theindividual’s writings as really‘genuine’) has become obsolete,and we hope will not return.[p. 99, emphasis added]

So we see that Dr Aland rejects out-of-hand the authorship of the FourGospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, andJohn, with even greater vehemencethan he had in 1962.

Only in one respect does Aland seemto have mitigated his contempt for theCatholic Epistles. Previously, in TheProblem of the New Testament Canon,he had said that the Epistles ofIgnatius excelled them. However, inA History of Christianity, he revises hisviews to the following:

Despite all the lack of principles,despite all the arbitrariness,despite all the errors—what thechurch has received in the NewTestament stands on anincomparably higher level than allthe other early Christianliterature. None of the writings ofthe Apostolic Fathers can evenremotely compare with those ofthe New Testament…’[pp. 113–114, emphasis added]

So, even though in Dr Aland’s opinionthe Catholic Epistles are rather poor—they depict a phantom Christ and areobviously the work of men who did notknow the reality and power of thehistorical Christ—yet their work stillsomehow excels the Apostolic Fathersincluding Ignatius. Perhaps he thoughtthat he might appease us by thesecomforting remarks.

Elsewhere in the work, Aland questionsthe Pauline authorship of Ephesians—but we defer further consideration ofthis work. It is abundantly clear Dr Alandwas not of the true Church, nor in theline of the true Church. Hence,according to Isaiah 59.20–21, he isnot one of those by whom the truewords of God should be preserved.

Conclusions

Dr Aland has exercised a very powerfuland dangerous influence upon thetextual views of our modern Bibletranslators. He clearly does not believethe Bible to be the Word of God.Believing the Bible to be the Word ofGod is plainly the foundation of savingfaith. Faith comes by hearing,Romans 10.17 tells us; but thishearing is by the Word of God. Paul’s


first epistle to the Thessalonians 2.13specifically tells us that those whobelieve did not receive the Word of Godas if it were the word of men, but asthe Word of God. ‘For this cause alsothank we God without ceasing,because, when ye received the word ofGod which ye heard of us, ye received itnot as the word of men, but as it is intruth, the word of God, which effectuallyworketh also in you that believe.’ By thephrase ‘you that believe’, Paul clearlyshows that he means that all believers,along with the Thessalonians, are ofsuch a mind. Accordingly, anyone whodoes not believe the Bible to be theWord of God is not a true believer.

Being as Dr Aland was not a truebeliever in any sense, we cannot deemhim to be of the line of the true Churchby which the true readings of Scripturewould be preserved.

We need to be grounded in a theologyof the Scriptures which is grounded inthe Scripture itself. And what saith theScripture?

*2 Timothy 3.16-17 ‘All scripture isgiven by inspiration of God, and isprofitable for doctrine, for reproof, forcorrection, for instruction inrighteousness: that the man of Godmay be perfect, throughly furnishedunto all good works.’

*Proverbs 30.5 ‘Every word of God ispure: he is a shield unto them that puttheir trust in him.’

*Isaiah 59.20–21 ‘And the Redeemershall come to Zion, and unto them thatturn from transgression in Jacob, saiththe LORD. As for me, this is mycovenant with them, saith the LORD; Myspirit that is upon thee, and my words

which I have put in thy mouth, shall notdepart out of thy mouth, nor out of themouth of thy seed, nor out of themouth of thy seed’s seed, saith theLORD, from henceforth and for ever.’

We grant that there are good men andwomen who mistakenly have embracedthe ‘new scholarship’ and the newertranslations based upon Greek textscompiled by men like Dr Aland. (Thetextual critics of the modern Greek textwho preceded Dr Aland were of a likebent, but reviewing all their doctrinalviews is beyond the scope of thispaper.) But to such good men andwomen, men and women who actuallydo believe in the inerrancy andinfallibility of God’s words, yet who haveembraced the Nestle-Aland text, wewould beseech them to consider theirways. Is it wise to put one’s stock insuch an important matter as to whatreally comprises the Word of God, intothe hands of a serious errorist like DrAland? Does not God’s Word and itsdoctrine concerning its own inspirationand transmission in every jot and tittle,and that, through the true Church, thatChurch that ‘turns from transgression’,make it altogether unfitting for anunbeliever to edit its sacred texts?What saith the Scripture?

‘And the Redeemer shall come to Zion,and unto them that turn fromtransgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.As for me, this is my covenant withthem’ (emphasis added). With whom isthis gracious and glorious covenant?And what are its provisions?

The covenant is with them that ‘turnfrom transgression’. It is with thosewho know saving repentance unto life.Granted, good men of the past appearat times to have cited a poor version of


25


a text—if indeed their own works werecopied correctly! But the true Church atlarge nonetheless recovered the betterreading. To that Church, and to itsProvidentially Preserved text, we oughtto, and indeed must, look.

We need to stay with the versions ofthe Bible translated from the historictexts of the true Church—the TextusReceptus in the Greek for the NewTestament and the Hebrew MasoreticText for the Old. The translators of ourAuthorised Version were Bible-believingmen, under the covenant of God. Let usstay with the ancient landmarks, withthe tried and faithful work of thetranslators of the Authorised Version.

*Jeremiah 6.16 ‘Thus saith the LORD,Stand ye in the ways, and see, and askfor the old paths, where is the goodway, and walk therein, and ye shall findrest for your souls.’

Endnotes1. Michael Marlowe, ‘Bibliography of TextualCriticism’, www.bible-researcher.com/bib-a.html,accessed 27 February 2007.

2. Kurt Aland, ‘The Problem of Anonymity andPseudonymity in Christian Literature of the FirstTwo Centuries’, The Authorship and Integrity ofthe New Testament: some recent studies byKurt Aland, et al. London, England: SPCK, 1965.

3. Kurt Aland, The Problem of the New TestamentCanon. London, England: A. R. Mowbray & Co.,1962.

4. F. H. A. Scrivener, Plain Introduction to theCriticism of the New Testament, 2 vols. Eugene,OR, USA: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1997.

5. Kurt Aland, A History of Christianity, 2 vols.Philadelphia, PA, USA: Fortress Press, 1985.

6. Aland, Problem of the New Testament Canon,p. v.

7. Edward Freer Hills, The King James VersionDefended (Des Moines, IA, USA: The ChristianResearch Press, 1984), pp. 104–5.

8. Holy Bible: New International Version (EastBrunswick, NJ, USA: International Bible Society,1986), p. 83.

9. Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the NewTestament, Erroll F. Rhodes, trans., 2nd ed. GrandRapids, MI, USA: William B. EerdmansPublishing Co., 1995.

10. Greek New Testament, 1st ed. Stuttgart,Germany: Wurtemburg Bible Societies,1966. Thisfootnote was retained in the second edition(1968), changed in the third (1975) to indicatethat the passage should be included, andchanged in the fourth (1993) to again indicateomission.

11. Erasmus no doubt was aware of the Vaticanmanuscript perhaps as early as 1521. Hisfamiliarity is more fully seen in his 1533correspondence with Sepulveda regarding thedifferences between Vaticanus and Erasmus’sGreek texts, and the prior’s similarity to the text ofthe Latin Vulgate. Yet Erasmus chose not tocorrect his Greek text to reflect those differences.It is thought by many that Erasmus foundVaticanus to be inferior to the Greek manuscriptson which he built his texts—and perhaps acorruption of the Greek text—and thus chose notto use it.

12. Edward Hills, Believing Bible Study (DesMoines, IA, USA: The Christian Research Press,1967), p. 34.

13. Ibid.

14. Hills, The King James Version Defended,pp. 69–70.

The Doctrinal Views of Dr Kurt Aland, Textual Critic

26


9 7 8 1 8 6 2 2 8 3 4 4 2

Product Code: A122

ISBN 978 1 86228 344 2

The aims of the Society

� To publish and distribute the HolyScriptures throughout the world in many languages.

� To promote Bible translations which are accurate and trustworthy, conforming to theHebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament,and the Greek Textus Receptus of the NewTestament, upon which texts the EnglishAuthorised Version is based.

� To be instrumental in bringing light andlife, through the Gospel of Christ, to thosewho are lost in sin and in the darkness offalse religion and unbelief.

� To uphold the doctrines of reformedChristianity, bearing witness to the equaland eternal deity of God the Father, God theSon and God the Holy Spirit, One God inthree Persons.

� To uphold the Bible as the inspired,inerrant Word of God.

� For the Glory of God and the increaseof His Kingdom through the circulationof Protestant or uncorrupted versions ofthe Word of God.

For introductory literature and catalogue pleasewrite to the Society at the address below.

Trinitarian Bible SocietyTyndale House, Dorset Road,London, SW19 3NN, England

e-mail: [email protected]


Front CoverIntroductionWe must believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, because the Bible says so.We must believe that God preserves His Word, by His Spirit, in the line of the true Church.What we must look for in atextual criticAn examination of Dr Kurt Aland’s views on the inspiration of the BibleThe Problem of the New Testament CanonThe orthodox view of the formulation of the CanonConclusions to be drawn from Aland’s comments thus farOther grave errors in Aland’s work The Problem of the New Testament CanonDr Aland’s influence on the New International Version‘The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian Literature of the First Two Centuries’Kurt Aland on the authorship of the Four GospelsDr Aland’s claim that the Catholic and Pastoral Epistles were written by pseudonymous authors examinedA History of Christianity by Kurt AlandAland’s contempt for the Catholic EpistlesConclusionsEndnotesThe aims of the Trinitarian Bible Society

/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False

/Description > /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ > /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ]>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice

A122 e:A122 Kurt Aland 22/11/2007 13:03 Page 1 Dr Kurt Aland...What today's Christian needs to know...

Documents

Transcript of A122 e:A122 Kurt Aland 22/11/2007 13:03 Page 1 Dr Kurt Aland...What today's Christian needs to know...