1

Luke Carpenter, 5910 Hillsboro Rd, Davisburg MI, 48350, [email protected]

Dr. John Gilhooly

Cedarville Honors College

31 January 2020

The Received Text of Scripture

The importance of Holy Scripture cannot be overstated. Because it is wholly inspired

revelation from God to man, it is the only foundation for truth, knowledge, faith, and obedience.

God is holy, true, and pure: it is therefore impossible that any of his revelation to man be

anything other than holy, true, and pure. Nothing can be known for certain apart from the Bible,

and Christians believe it because the Holy Spirit has revealed it to us. The truthfulness and

inspiration of it applies not only to the ideas and concepts expressed, but also to the words used

to express them. Additionally, God has most graciously promised to preserve his written word

throughout history so that the church may search it for eternal life, find hope during tribulation,

have consolation during temptation, and resolve controversies of religion. However, when one

becomes aware of differences that exist between Biblical manuscripts, especially those of the

New Testament, a looming shadow of doubt begins to arise. Accounts of many events—such as

the resurrection appearances of our Lord in Mark, the adulteress in John, and Jesus’ bloody

sweat in Luke—are alleged to not have been written by the original authors. Scores of other

verses and phrases within verses are likewise purported to be spurious or potentially spurious.

Much of this uncertainty arose when a plethora of Greek New Testaments (GNTs) began to enter

the market. Most evangelicals in the 21st century read, study, and preach from translations based

on the problematic Nestle-Aland GNT, formerly known as the Westcott-Hort GNT. Prior to the
 2

arrival of that textual tradition in 1881, all of the orthodox believers maintained that the Textus

Receptus GNT, otherwise known as the Received Text (RT), was the providentially preserved

word of God. The Reformers, and nearly all other Christians before 1881, were correct in this

assessment. The Westcott-Hort or Nestle-Aland suite of GNTs are subpar and fail to show marks

of divine authentication. To defend them is ultimately an abandonment of what God promised,

the doctrine of the inspiration of scripture, and why Christians believe any of the Bible to be true.

When the principles of theology, doctrine, and epistemology and canon are considered, the

Received Text of Protestantism is shown to be divinely authenticated as the certain word of God.

Before discussing the truthfulness of any subject, it is imperative to bring every thought

into captivity to the obedience of Christ. Any attempt, therefore, to answer the question, “What is

Scripture?”, hereafter referred to as the canonical question, must ultimately begin with God’s

promises. Our Lord Jesus Christ during his high priestly prayer said1, “Sanctify them with thy

truth; thy word is truth.” God has also proclaimed2, “My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words,

which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy

seed, nor out of the mouth of the seed of thy seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth even forever.”

The reason that scripture is authentic is that it is given by the inspiration of God. Its genuineness

is not based upon man’s reasoning or the reconstruction of its text on scientific principles.

God’s promises and providence must be the ultimate standard for answering the

canonical question; any positions that abandon this axiom are inherently foolish and atheistic in

nature.3 Some may object by attributing every event to God’s providence, including the

discovery of older New Testament manuscripts, but this position is erroneous. It is important to

1
John 17:17
2
Isaiah 59:21
3
Psalm 14:1
 3

distinguish between God’s providence in which he upholds everything, and his providence by

which he keeps his word pure in all ages. As the Westminster Confession states, “As the

providence of God doth, in general, reach to all creatures; so, after a most special manner, it

taketh care of His Church, and disposeth all things to the good thereof.”4 Without God’s special

providence, his sheep would not know what scripture is. From this, it is evident that God’s

promises and special providence toward his church give us surety that his word is true, and that

is has been firmly established forever.

Based on this theological foundation, only the Received Text is authenticated as the word

of God. It is the only printed text that was compiled using believing principles. If it is not the

word of God, God deceived his church for over 1,800 years and especially for the 350 years after

the start of the Reformation. Such an accusation would imply that the Bible used during the

greatest spiritual revival in the New Testament age was filled with spurious additions and

uninspired words. It would indicate that the Holy Spirit failed to guide the bride of Christ into all

truth and that God failed to preserve his word. Moreover, it would suggest an atheistic form of

preservation: that God has left man to reconstruct his word. One who holds to the Received Text

need not place faith in ancient papyri and uncials of unknown provenance by which attempts are

made to reconstruct the text. Rather, faith is placed in God’s singular care for his word. It is not a

“reconstructionist” approach but a “preservationist” approach.

The various modern critical editions of the GNT are disqualified from being the pure

word of God on this same theological basis. The editors responsible for the production and

publication of these critical editions have abandoned God’s promises.5 In the late 19th century,

4
Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 5 Paragraph 7
5
On page xii of ​Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism,​ Dan Wallace admits, “We do not have now...exactly what the authors
of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the [NT] is uncertain.”
 4

B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort headed a committee which was tasked with correcting “plain and

clear errors in the Authorized Version”. Rather than creating only a slightly revised English

translation, they presumptuously created an entirely new Greek text.6 This Greek text and its

subsequent editions by Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle, and Kürt Aland have become the standard

academic New Testament text.7 Its shortcomings are made manifest from its very origins when

Westcott and Hort said, “This edition is an attempt to present exactly the original words of the

New Testament, so far as they can now be determined from surviving documents.”8 There is no

recognition whatsoever of God’s “more sure word of prophecy.”9 This same spirit is likewise

seen in the editors of the Nestle-Aland GNT when they contend, “The Novum Testamentum

Graece is produced primarily for research, academic education and pastoral practice. It seeks to

provide an apparatus that enables the reader to make a critical assessment of the reconstruction

of the Greek initial text.”10 The foundation of reconstructionism can never be certain. Even in the

past decade, the advent of the Coherence Based Genealogical Method has made the 19th century

notion of text-types obsolete. Many scholars no longer believe that the original text can even be

reconstructed, but only the “ausgangstext”, or initial text.11 This change in terminology further

shows the futileness of reconstructionism because any and all textual decisions are unverifiable.

It is impossible for the modernist to prove with certainty, for example, that a phrase omitted in

the RT, “και το τριτον της γης κατεκαη” (and the third of the earth was burnt up), belongs in

Revelation 8:7 even though it is contained in all known Greek manuscripts except for eleven.

Modern textual criticism is atheistic and should be abandoned for the RT by every believer.

6
Burgon, ​The Revision Revised,​ pgs 127, 130
7
Nestle-Aland 28, pg 46
8
Westcott and Hort, ​The New Testament in the Original Gre​ek, pg 1
9
2 Peter 1:19ff
10
Nestle-Aland 28, pg 47
11
Wasserman and Gurry, pgs 1-2, 7-13
 5

Although many textual variants are trivial and involve matters of spelling or style in word

order, hundreds remain that substantially affect doctrine. Whether Christ is called ο μονογενης

υιος (the only begotten Son) or ο μονογενης θεος (the only begotten God) in John 1:18 has large

implications on Christology. The inclusion or non-inclusion of Christ’s post-resurrection

appearances and ascension in Mark 16:9-20 greatly influence the power and truthfulness of the

gospel. Whether or not Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” in

Luke 23:34 results in an abundant amount of interpretive issues. Countless other examples could

be provided such as the doctrine of the Trinity in 1 John 5:7, the Ethiopian eunuch’s confession

of faith prior to baptism in Acts 8:37, the hypostatic union in 1 Timothy 3:16, and the

communicatio idiomatum in John 3:13 and Acts 20:28. Both readings cannot be inspired. To try

to interpret a text in light of multiple variants conflicts with the doctrine of the inspiration of

scripture. Many have objected by claiming that the evidence found in recent discoveries proves

that the RT readings are incorrect. However, this is a denial of the theological foundation of

preservation, and a reinterpretation of what Christians have believed about Holy Scripture from

the beginning.12 It would do the “reconstructionists” well to heed Paul’s warning to not be

“carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the deceit of men, and with craftiness”.13

God’s promises of inspiration and preservation as revealed in scripture are the sole

foundation for determining what the canon of scripture is. Thus, scripture is self-authenticating;

it is the highest authority and needs no external validation by man.14 The self-authentication of

the canon applies to both the books and the text of those books.15 Any attempts to reconstruct the

12
For specific examples on how scripture was viewed by the Reformers, see Richard Muller’s work, ​Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics
Volume 2: Holy Scripture, the Cognitive Foundation for Theology
13
Ephesians 4:14
14
Michael J. Kruger, ​Canon Revisited​, pgs 89-94
15
Robert Truelove, ​Text and Canon Conference 2019​, Lecture 1
 6

canon, both books and text, are futile because it is self-authenticating. If it must be verified by a

separate entity, such as modern scholars’ interpretation of extant evidence, that entity becomes

the true final authority and sola scriptura is abandoned. 3 John and Esther are canonical in the

same way that John 7:53-8:11 or 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are canonical. God’s special providence

for his church has led his bride to the correct books and correct text.16 Without this, we would not

know what either are. The recognition of the canon by the Church does not make it canon, but

the Holy Spirit guides the flock of God into all truth.17 We hear Christ’s voice and follow him.

Christians can be assured that the RT is the preserved canon.18 As Thomas Manton aptly noted:

Now it would exceedingly furnish the triumphs of hell if we should...disadvantage the

church by the loss of a most considerable part of the canon; for the case doth not only

concern this epistle [of James], but divers others, as the Second of Peter, the Second and

Third Epistles of John, the Book of the Revelation, the last chapter of Mark, some

passages in the 22nd of Luke, the beginning of the 8th of John, some passages in the 5th

chapter of the First Epistle of John. Where would profaneness stay? And, if this liberty

should be allowed, [where would] the flood of atheism stop its course?19

Although a Received Text position does not focus primarily on evidence, in God’s

providence there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the readings of the RT. The work

of the Holy Spirit can be seen historically in the fall of Constantinople, the invention of the

printing press, the Renaissance, and the Reformation. These factors combined allowed for the

compilation, printing, and publication of the RT GNTs of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza.20

Furthermore, the Spirit’s work can be seen philologically in the remaining evidence. Most of the

16
Robert Truelove, ​Text and Canon Conference 2019​, Lecture 2
17
John 14:16, 26, 15:26f, 16:13f
18
John Calvin, Book 1 Chapter 7 Section 4, pg 72
19
Thomas Manton, Prolegomena to James, pg 10
20
Jeffery Riddle, ​Text and Canon Conference 2019,​ Lectures 3-4
 7

passages in the RT which are disputed, and have consequently been omitted by modern GNTs,

have the vast majority of evidence in support of their inclusion.21 Others, although not majority

readings, do have various degrees of support from either Greek manuscripts, ancient translations,

and/or patristic citations.22 The authority and tenacity of the Received Text can be confidently

maintained because of God’s providence, even in spite of the seeming lack of evidence in some

isolated cases.23 Christians should not be disserviced by the removal of canonical scripture. Apart

from the Holy Spirit guiding the church into all truth, we would not know what his true word is

at all—either the book of Esther, or the inspired reading of Revelation 21:24. Thankfully, the

Lord has graciously provided for his church by preserving his life-giving words for her.

The Received Text of the Reformation is shown to be the pure word of God based on his

precious promises of preservation, the rich doctrinal implications, and the process by which the

church recognizes the canon. The modern reconstructionist approach is ungodly and works

contrary to the gospel. No amount of revision of the RT is needed because the Holy Spirit,

throughout history and culminating in the Reformation, has caused God’s holy nation to hear the

voice of their Saviour. On this basis, Christians can have surety that every word of God is pure

and that our salvation is secure. The same God who preserves his word preserves the souls of his

elect in Jesus Christ.24 The glorious gospel that we preach is by word of God that lives and

abides forever. To this agree the words of our Saviour when he prayed, “For I have given unto

them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them, and have known surely that

I came out from thee, and have believed that thou hast sent me.”25

21
​Matthew 6:13b, 12:47, 17:21, 18:11, 20:16b, 21:44, 23:14, Mark 1:1b, 6:11b, 7:16, 9:44, 46, 11:26, 15:28, 16:9-20, Luke 9:55-56, 22:43-44,
23:17, 23:34b, 24:40, John 5:4, 7:53-8:11, Acts 24:6b-8a, 28:29, Rom. 8:1b, 11:6b, 16:24, Gal. 3:1a, Col. 3:6b, 1 Peter 4:14b, 1 John 5:13b
22
Matthew 27:35b, Luke 17:36, Acts 8:37, 9:5b-6a, 15:34, 1 John 2:23, 5:7b-8a, Revelation 1:11a, 4:3a
23
Single words or phrases in Luke 7:31, Acts 10:6, Eph. 3:9, 2 Tim. 2:19, Heb. 4:2, 2 Peter 1:1, 1 John 3:16, Rev. 14:5, 16:5, 7, 21:2, 22:21
24
Jude 1:1
25
John 17:8
 8

Works Cited

Burges, Cornelius. ​Westminster Confession of Faith​. 1646.

Burgon, John W. ​The Revision Revised.​ Old Paths Publications, 1883.

Calvin, John. ​Institutes of the Christian Religion.​ Translated by Henry Beveridge, 1845,

ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes/institutes.iii.viii.html.

Geneva Bible.​ 1599, www.genevabible.org/Geneva.html.

Gurry, Peter J., and Elijah Hixson. ​Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism.​

InterVarsity Press, 2019.

Kruger, Michael J. ​Canon Revisited​. Wheaton, IL, Crossway, 2012.

Manton, Thomas. ​The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, D.D.​ Vol. 4, James Nisbet & Co.,

1871, 20 vols, ccel.org/ccel/manton/manton04/manton04.iii.iii.html.

Nestle-Aland. ​Novum Testamentum Graece.​ 28th ed., Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,

2012.

Truelove, Robert, and Jeffery T. Riddle. "Text and Canon Conference 2019." Christ Reformed

Church, 25 Oct. 2019, Atlanta, GA, tinyurl.com/ud59czn.

Wasserman, Tommy, and Peter J. Gurry. ​A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction

to the Coherence Based Genealogical Method.​ Atlanta, SBL Press, 2017.

Westcott, Brooke F., and Fenton J. Hort. ​The New Testament in the Original Greek​. New York,

Macmillan and Co., 1896, tinyurl.com/ulfjtws.