For nearly two hundred years, the history of textual criticism in the modern period has been the account of the breaking away from what the liberals and apostates have called the "bondage" or "tyranny"1 of the Textus Receptus. These men have asserted that it is as foolish to reject Westcott and Hort's theories (and retain the Textus Receptus) as it is to reject the law of gravity.2 Conversely, conservative fundamentalists3 have been accused of worshipping the King James Bible. Such an act would, of course, be a sin were anyone actually to do so, but is it not a far greater sin to worship Westcott and Hort? In reality, the liberals and apostates have brought us from the "bondage of the Textus Receptus and King James translation" to the bondage of Vaticanus B. All they have done is exchange one for the other, the latter being an untrue, unfaithful witness.
The problem with Hort's work is that the student is never taken with him along the path which he followed but has to start with the acceptance of Hort's final result.4 The hostile critics have to explain how Vaticanus B comes to oppose the sub-apostolic Fathers deliberately in many places if we are going to accept anyone's assurance, especially Hort's, about B's being "neutral".5 The truth is that the maligned Textus Receptus has been the base with which B tampered and changed; the church at large recognized this until the year 1881 when Hortism was allowed free play.6 Those who accept the W-Hort text, or its modern counterpart, are placing their faith upon an Egyptian revision which occurred somewhere from 200 to 450 A.D. and was abandoned by Bible believers all over the civilized world between 500 to 1881 A.D.7 After the true Church buried B and its allies through disuse, these Egyptian "mummies" were "resurrected" in recent times and restamped as "genuine". Thus, the modern Church has accepted as authentic that which the early Church rejected. Such are the ways of present day Laodicea (Rev.3:14-22).
It must be kept in mind that when God promised to preserve the text against permanent destruction, He did not guarantee within that promise the accuracy of each and every manuscript. Although this certainly could have been done, it would have necessitated a continuing miracle. Moreover, God's promise did not include the threat of His immediate execution of the person causing an error or corruption in the copying or production of a manuscript, whether deliberate or accidential. His promise merely guarantees the preservation of the text.
The excuse that we needed a revision because we found older manuscripts has been exposed as unfounded and untrue. Beyond all question the fact is that the Textus Receptus is the dominant
2 Hills, Believing Bible Study, op. cit., pp. 89-91.
3 About 1910, in opposition to liberal attempts to reconcile the teachings of Christianity with the theories of "science falsely so-called" (especially evolution), conservative Protestants met and drew up five "fundamentals" of the faith which were insisted upon as necessary for acceptence as being Christian. They are: (1) the infallibility and literal truth of the Bible in every detail; (2) the virgin birth and complete deity of Christ Jesus; (3) the physical resurrection of Christ Jesus and all the dead; (4) the atoning sacrifice of Christ Jesus for the sins of the world; and (5) the second coming of Christ Jesus in bodily form (New Standard Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, p. 375).
18 Salmon, Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, op. cit., p. 43.
4 Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 422.
5 Ibid., p. 465.
6 Ibid., p. 468.
