Spanish Bible Gnostic heresy allegations at Reina-Valera-Gomez Conference

This is a critique of one aspect of a conference that took place in November 2007 in Iglesia Bautista Libertad in Matamoros, Tam. Mexico, where reviser Humberto Gomez is the pastor. The conference is covered more in-depth at Critique of Gomez Spanish Bible conference of November 2007

The first Spanish Bible reading that Dr. D.A. Waite objected to was Luke 2:22. I find it strange that he did not admit that the 1960 reading is vindicated by the Textus Receptus. This is one of the places where there is textual variation among Textus Receptus editions. In spite of this, Dr. Waite proceeded to inform those in attendance that the 1960 reading was a Gnostic heresy. Perhaps he didn’t mean to, but he in effect accused the Erasmus and Stephanus editions of the Textus Receptus of containing Gnostic heresy, because their rendering matches the 1960 reading.

Concerning Luke 4:41, Luke 23:42, and Acts 9:29, Dr. Waite complained that the 1960 readings contained Gnostic heresies. He did not inform anyone that these readings were present in the 1862 and 1909 Spanish Bibles, which would be a reading before the Westcott and Hort text was introduced in 1881. Dr. Waite stated in his 3rd speech of the conference that “Gnostic false doctrines of Vaticanus and Siniaticus were buried from 600 AD to 1881.”

As to Mark 9:24 and Acts 3:26, Dr. Waite considered the 1960 readings to be Gnostic heresies. He did not mention that these heretical readings are in the 1862 and 1909 Spanish Bibles, which would make it a pre-Westcott & Hort reading. He may not have realized that the readings he considered to be heresies are vindicated by the Syriac Peshitta, which is considered to be “based on the Received Text” by Dr. Waite himself on p. 46 of his book “Defending the KJB,” 4th edition.

As to 2 Corinthians 4:14, Dr. Waite made the sensational allegation that since the 1960 said “con Jesus” instead of “por Jesús,” this would make it a Gnostic denial of the resurrection of Christ. However, look at the first part of the verse in the 1960: “he which raised up the Lord Jesus…” (the first half reads like the KJV). It reveals the resurrection of Jesus as already completed! Also the Greek word in question (Strongs #1223) was translated as “with” in Mark 16:20, and in other places in the KJV, so the 1960 did not violate the Greek in the process of translation.

By Dr. Waite’s criteria, the KJV denies the deity of Christ in Heb. 13:20 compared to the RVG and 1960. I do not believe the KJV ever denies the diety of Christ; I am simply applying Dr. Waite’s logic to see where it would take us. I personally predict that once this becomes public, Gomez will change Heb. 13:20 to match the KJV.

The chart below (best viewed with Firefox browser) demonstrates when a Gnostic corruption allegation in the 1960 applies to other Spanish Bibles. A vindication for the Spanish Bible reading is included, without resorting to critical texts.

*In brackets

87% of the time that a 1960 reading was accused of being a Gnostic heresy, it applied to the 1909, but the conference speakers did not admit it.

80% of the time that a 1960 reading was accused of being a Gnostic heresy, it applied to the 1862, but the conference speakers did not admit it.

47% of the time that a 1960 reading was accused of being a Gnostic heresy, it applied to the 1569 & 1602.

After Dr. Waite’s second session, Pastor Carter came to the front and stated regarding this: “While the 1909 needed the improvements that Brother Gomez has made, there was not a Gnostic plan behind it, to destroy these truths that Brother Waite was showing.”

It was taught or at least clearly implied in the conference that there was a Gnostic plan behind the 1960, but it was declared that it was not so with the 1909. However, 87% of the time that a 1960 reading was accused of being a Gnostic heresy, it applied to the 1909. Why would a negligible percentage increase change the Spanish Bible from not having a Gnostic plan to being corrupted by Gnostic heresies? Since the conference attendees were not being informed of the times the passages being labeled as Gnostic heresies applied to 1569-1909 Spanish Bibles, they were surely left with a false impression.

What primary source documentation did Dr. Waite reveal in the conference to prove from history that specifically the Gnostics did indeed corrupt specific manuscripts that are extant today? None. I’m aware of a couple quotes from around 200 AD that mention the allegation of tampering with manuscripts, but no Gnostics are mentioned in the quotes, nor are the manuscripts identified. That Gnostics tampered with Scriptures that affected manuscripts that are extant is a speculative theory that Dr. Waite presented as an established fact in the conference. In Jack Moorman’s book Forever Settled, published by Dr. Waite’s Dean Burgon Society, the first mention of possible Gnostic textual corruptions were presented as a theory: “This omission seems to be a mutilation of the sacred text at the hands of heretics, probably Gnostics.”(1999 edition, p. 108, emphasis mine). Not one time did I notice Dr. Waite use language as Moorman did to demonstrate he was putting forth a theory. In other words, he wasn’t saying “this verse could have/might have been tampered with by a Gnostic.” Although Dr. Waite did not say it outright, he came across as implying that the 1960 revisers were Gnostics. This led to a question from the audience as to who was behind the 1960, and whether he was a Gnostic. This aspect is picked up in Critique of Gomez Spanish Bible conference of November 2007.

A minimum of 47 percent of the verses that Dr. Waite considered to have Gnostic readings in the Spanish Bible apply to all the major translations in the heritage of the Reina-Valera (1569/1602/1862/1909/). He did not mention this during the conference, as he may not have been trying to portray the whole Reina-Valera line as being corrupted with Gnosticism. However, research demonstrates that almost half of the “Gnostic” readings that he attributed to the 1960 apply to just about every major Reina-Valera translation starting in 1569; therefore, when he made the provocative statement in the conference that Spanish Bibles previous to the 2004 RVG “contain poison,” he sadly was in effect denouncing our entire Spanish Bible heritage. I’m truly saddened that Dr. Waite, who has dedicated his life to the noble cause of defending the KJV, has gradually become more extreme in recent years.

March 2008 video on Gnosticism in the Spanish Bible

Around March of 2008 Dr. Waite and Pastor Gomez released a video on “Gnosticism in the Spanish Bible.” It made basically the same allegations as in the November 2007 conference.

This topic was presented as if every single Spanish Bible translator or reviser was duped by Gnostic readings over hundreds of years. This study consistently mentioned the 1960, but it rarely mentioned when other previous revisions contained the reading that was objected to.

When it came to trying to prove that there was Gnostic influence in the area of Christ’s resurrection in the Reina-Valera, as in other cases a serious allegation on very superficial grounds was made. Two verses were presented as “evidence” of the denial of the resurrection in the Reina-Valera: 2 Corinthians 4:14 and Romans 10:7.

As for 2 Corinthians 4:14, the complaint was that con (Jesús), instead of por (Jesús) results in a denial of the resurrection of Christ. However, a look at the first part of the verse in the 1960 removes any possible doubt: “he which raised up the Lord Jesus…” (the first half reads like the KJV). It reveals the resurrection of Jesus as already completed! Also the Greek word in question (Strong’s #1223) was translated as “with” in Mark 16:20, and in other places in the KJV, so the 1960 did not violate the Greek in the process of translation.

As for Romans 10:7, the following was alleged by Pastor Gómez: “If you have your 1960 Bible, the word [sic] ‘bring up again’ was erased. It merely says ‘to bring up Christ from the dead.’ In other words, as if Christ was still in the tomb, as if he still had not resurrected.” However, the 1960 translated this verse literally. This is not a textual variant. Both Scrivener’s 1894 edition of the Textus Receptus (Pocket Interlinear New Testament [1982] by J. P. Green) and Newberry’s Interlinear Greek New Testament based on the Stephanus 1550 Textus Receptus have “Christ to bring down,”(without “again”) matching the 1960. The word “again” is not in the Greek, but was added in the KJV for clarification. The 1960 translators were not erasing anything that was in the Greek. Notice the context also. The last part of the previous verse speaks about bringing Christ down from above, and then contrasted with bringing him up from the dead in verse seven. Baptist commentator John Gill says regarding this: “these phrases are proverbial, and often used to express things impossible.” Notice also that just two verses down from the verse in dispute, is a famous resurrection verse which ends as follows: “…and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” No one has said outright that the 1960 revisers did not believe in Christ’s bodily resurrection, but by the nature of the complaint against this verse such a thing is being implied. This is an insult to the 1960 revisers, who tended to be conservative in their theology. One 1960 reviser even composed a beautiful poem about the resurrection, with the title “¡Él Vive!” (He lives!)

The following was alleged about Burgon in the video: “As Dean Burgon has said, ‘when the Gnostics couldn’t find their heresies supported by the Scriptures, they changed the Scriptures.’”

Perhaps Burgon said this in a certain context. I do not know if he used those exact words, as no source was given for the quote. I have read him mentioning the Gnostics as a possible source for some of the differences between manuscripts. However, he also presented other possible reasons, which were totally overlooked by the speakers in this video. Among these other possible reasons presented by Burgon are the following which I describe in my own words:

1. Carelessness in the process of transcribing

2. Smoothing out the text by those who were sound in doctrine. Burgon even added that he suspected they were as much to blame as those who had less noble motives.

Burgon makes those two points in his own words as follows in his book The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels:

“We are prepared to make the utmost allowance for careless, even for licentious transcription; and we can invent excuses for the mistaken zeal, the officiousness if men prefer to call it so, which has occasionally not scrupled to adopt conjectural emendations of the Text. … I do not say that Heretics were the only offenders here. I am inclined to suspect that the orthodox were as much to blame as the impugners of the Truth.” Burgon, John. (Arranged, completed, and edited posthumously by Edward Miller) The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels. 1896, pp. 191 & 197.

By his statements, Burgon clearly implied that it was not possibly to know the exact reason for a difference between manuscripts. However, in the verses Dr. Waite and Pastor Gomez complained about in the Spanish Bible, they claimed to know the exact reason and source every time, without presenting it as a theory. I listened to their recording twice, and I did not notice them ever saying that a particular verse could have/might have been tampered by a Gnostic. It was always in the affirmative. They chose to take a conspiratorial approach instead of a balanced approach that took into consideration other possibilities as Burgon did.

Let’s end with an admonition by Burgon himself, which warns against what was attempted in the conference and the video:

Our business as critics is not to invent theories to account for the errors of copyists; but rather to ascertain where they have erred, where not. … it is by no means safe to follow up the detection of a depravation of the text with a theory to account for its existence. Let me be allowed to say that such theories are seldom satisfactory. Guesses only they are at best.

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, pp. 100-101

Read this article in Spanish.  Análisis del video de Humberto Gómez acerca de supuesto Gnosticismo en la Reina-Valera