Any small variations among the editions of the Textus Receptus, other than typographical errors, should be indicated in the center column of future editions. The critic's allegation that God has not preserved every word of the inspired N.T. text solely in the TR is an un-provable and untruthful assertion. The Christian needs a firmer foundation than the ever shifting consensus of scholarly opinion upon which to anchor his faith. Only the existence of a continuously preserved, providentially determined text provides such a basis. The Textus Receptus alone affords such a cornerstone.
The Christian must come to grips with and understand that a purely rational totally scientific method of dealing with the problems inherent with the text of Scripture can never really produce the desired result for in the ultimate sense, we can never demonstrate the agreement between the Textus Receptus and the original manuscripts since the originals have not survived to our day. Thus, once again, Hills' "logic of faith" is the only method that can bridge the gap back to the autographs. However, it must be recognized that the same must be said for the Traditional or Majority Text. Indeed, the hostile critics are themselves in the same predicament; none can compare their favored readings to the original in order to establish its superiority.1 Inevitably we must "receive" the Received Text. The Church is utterly dependent upon God's providential preservation of the text. Moreover, the Reformers did not distinguish between the text they actually possessed and the originals. They believed they had the original wording preserved by the "singular care and providence" of God (See the Philadelphia Confession on this author's p. Error! Bookmark not defined.).
Truly, the entire matter may be summarized by the words of the late Dr. D.O. Fuller:
"If you and I believe that the original writings of the Scriptures were verbally inspired by God, then of necessity they must have been providentially preserved through the ages.2
For those of us who comprehend and submit to the truth and logic embodied in this singular quote, there reamains absolutely no need for textual criticism. Colwell acknowledged as much:
"It is often assumed by the ignorant and uninformed - even on a university campus - that textual criticism of the New Testament is supported by a superstitious faith in the Bible as a book dictated in miraculous fashion by God. That is not true. Textual criticism has never existed for those whose New Testament is one of miracle, mystery and authority. A New testament created under those auspices would have been handed down under them and would have no need of textual criticism."3
Of course Colwell goes on to assure his reader that as such is not the case, textual criticism is a most necessary tool in determining the "best" New testament"4
The next question is, which of the versions – if any – reflects the original wording from the autographs in English? Without hesitation, we say that the King James "Version" is that entity. It is "the Bible" in the English language. Yet strangely when this and the overall message contained in this manuscript has been shared and explained by the author (as well as by others, present or past), the reaction from the vast majority of readers or listeners – whether laymen, pastors or professors – has been so bewildering and unexplainable. Not seeming to comprehend that help and warning are being offered rather than "criticism", most become very defensive and often irritated. A pall of apathy overshadows the subject. This is indeed a troubling tragedy in the extreme.
1 Douglas Taylor, "A Special Look at Appendix C", Bible League Quarterly, (Northampton, England: The Bible League Trust, Oct.-Dec., 1990), p. 379.
2 Fuller, Which Bible?, op. cit., p. 147.
3 Colwell, What Is The Best New Testament?, op. cit.,p.8. This quote is typical of the modern critic's low view of Scripture.
4 Ibid., p.9. Notice Colwell does not say the "true" or "original" N.T. but merely the "best". Like those listed on p. 82, he obviously neither believed the original text had been preserved nor that it could ever be fully recovered.
133
continued...