better text, where are the great revivals that should have followed this enterprise? Does not this hard historical truth bear irrefutable testimony as to which text the Spirit of God has endorsed and stamped genuine – to that which He breathed man-ward?

Patient reader, in the previous pages we have declared and proclaimed that the defense of the King James Bible and its Greek foundation, the Textus Receptus, has been the very least of concern within the realm and scope of Textual Criticism. Almost all its energy has been directed toward "reconstructing" the text on the basis of a few old uncials, and ferreting out what little support can be gleaned for these MSS. It is not intended by the author to imply that the theological views of Burgon or Hills automatically make their text critical views correct or that those of Origen, Westcott, Hort, etc. necessarily make them wrong. Nevertheless up to the time of Westcott and Hort, the unyielding uniform Protestant consensus (of course, among so many there were some dissenters) can be summed by Quenstedt who, in the 1600's stated:

"We believe, as is our duty, that the providential care of God has always watched over the original and primitive texts of the canonical Scriptures in such a way that we can be certain that the sacred codices which we now have in our hands are those which existed at the time of Jerome and Augustine, nay at the time of Christ Himself and His apostles."1 (author's italics) Moreover, before the time of W-H: "the 'lower criticism' had kept itself quite apart from the so-called dangerous 'higher criticism'. Since the publication of Hort's text, however, and that of the Revisers, much of the heresy of our time has fallen back upon the supposed results acquired by the 'lower criticism' to bolster up their views."2

It cannot be over stressed that just as the LORD used the Hebrew community to preserve the Old Testament Scriptures as He had originally given to them in that selfsame language (i.e., the Hebrew Masoretic text), even so the instrument by which GOD has preserved the New Testament text has been that community through which the Greek tongue has been continued. The Textus Receptus is the official text of the Greek Orthodox Church to this very day.

We purport that the various editions of the Textus Receptus are the overall framework within which providential preservation has operated. We affirm that all the words of the inspired New Testament Scriptures are to be found within this framework. We proclaim that the work of the various editors – Erasmus, Stephens, Beza and the Elizevirs – was the result of God's providence in stabilizing the TR as a settled entity. Hence, no further revision of the Greek wording is needed as God, through His providence, has settled the text. Further, we have seen that the dark ages truly began with the Greek text of Westcott and Hort (Origen-Eusebius) which was published by Jerome in 405 A.D., and ended with the 1516 publication of the Greek text of Erasmus.

The single most enduring and reasonable charge that has been leveled against the TR which persists to this day is that Erasmus had to use the Latin Vulgate for the last six verses in the final chapter of the Book of Revelation (although Hoskier, the greatest authority on these manuscripts, doubts this). Yet even if this is granted, what doctrines are at risk with regard to the variant readings here? None. Indeed, Erasmus was using an edition which had been produced "from an ancient Greek exemplar representing a text from at least as far back as the third century when he employed the Vulgata for these last few verses. Unlike the Egyptian uncials, however, no doctrine is at stake whatsoever. The meaning is not even altered."3

1 Preus, The Inspiration of Scripture, op. cit., p. 139.

2 Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 421-422.

3 Letis, "A Reply to the Remarks of Mark A. McNeil", op. cit., p. 4.

132


continued...