Upholding the Confessional and Doctrinal Role of Providential Preservation
Jan Krans’ article “Why the Textus Receptus Cannot Be Accepted” presents several critiques of the Textus Receptus (TR), aiming to discredit its standing as a reliable witness to the New Testament text. However, Krans’ critiques rest on assumptions that overlook the Reformed doctrines of providential preservation and the theological underpinnings upheld by the historical church. This response will address Krans’ assertions from a Confessional Bibliology standpoint, which sees the TR not as a human construct but as a divinely preserved text that has served the church for centuries. This approach reasserts the TR’s importance, not based on the purely empirical criteria of modern textual criticism but on doctrinal grounds rooted in historical theology and confessional commitments.
Understanding the Doctrine of Divine Preservation
The Confessional Bibliology position on divine preservation insists that God has not only inspired the original autographs but has also preserved His word throughout history. This concept goes beyond the transmission of abstract ideas or doctrines and extends to the very words of Scripture. In this view, preservation is understood to be both verbal and plenary, safeguarding the text of Scripture in such a way that the church today possesses a trustworthy Bible in line with the original autographs.
Confessions such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Second London Baptist Confession, and other Reformed documents underscore this doctrine, maintaining that the Scriptures have been kept pure in all ages. This belief is not peripheral but foundational, as it directly impacts how we understand God’s covenantal relationship with His people. To uphold Scripture as pure in all ages is to acknowledge that God has faithfully preserved His word in a form accessible to believers—a text embodying both accuracy and doctrinal soundness.
Rebuttal of Krans’ Core Arguments
- Divine Preservation and the Textus Receptus
Krans argues that passages in Scripture that discuss preservation do not refer to the copying of texts but rather to the conveyed truth or message. This position, however, stands at odds with the confessional doctrines articulated by historical theologians like John Owen, Richard Baxter, and Francis Turretin, who argued for a preservation that extended to the specific wording of the Bible. These theologians emphasized that God’s word, rather than a vague concept or overarching message, was preserved in the text received by the church.
For example, John Owen argued that the church had received a text that faithfully represented the original autographs—a text divinely preserved by God’s providence. To Owen, this was not merely a general message but the specific wording of Scripture that held theological and doctrinal weight. The TR, in this light, represents the culmination of this preserved text, embodying the Reformed doctrine of verbal preservation in its words and phrases. Krans’ dismissal of textual preservation as merely the preservation of concepts undermines the confessional stance, shifting from a divinely orchestrated preservation to an abstraction alien to the beliefs of the Reformers.
- Historical and Theological Considerations of the TR’s Authority
Krans views the TR as a historically situated text, crafted during the Reformation, and therefore lacking the validity of a critically reconstructed text. This perspective overlooks the theological framework within which the TR was embraced by the Reformed church. According to the confessions, the TR is not just a text favored by the Reformers; it is seen as part of God’s providential design, delivered to the church as a reliable witness to the apostolic writings.
This Reformed perspective maintains that God guided the preservation process, ensuring that His people would have access to His word in a form faithful to the original. This belief does not rely on the quantity of manuscripts supporting the TR but on its theological pedigree. The church, particularly through the Reformed confessions, accepted the TR not merely because it was available during the Reformation but because it was seen as doctrinally and theologically sound. To undermine this basis is to ignore the confessional principle that the TR’s authority stems from God’s providential work, not from the shifting sands of modern textual methodology.
- The Myth of Manuscript Deficiency
Krans critiques the Textus Receptus by arguing that it relies on a limited number of manuscripts, especially compared to the more extensive manuscript data available today. However, this argument overlooks the fact that the modern critical text, which Krans favors, primarily depends on a small selection of manuscripts itself, especially Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, along with about 50 other texts. While critical text advocates often tout a vast array of manuscripts as evidence of reliability, the reality is that the foundation of the critical text is not derived from the majority of manuscripts but is almost exclusively built on these few early but highly divergent sources.
This reliance on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is significant because these manuscripts are outliers, often in stark disagreement with the Byzantine text-type, which represents the vast majority of available Greek manuscripts. The Byzantine tradition, though late in terms of dating, exhibits remarkable consistency and stability, which many in the Confessional Bibliology perspective argue is a sign of the text preserved through regular church usage. The TR aligns much more closely with this Byzantine tradition, which the historical church used widely and consistently for centuries.
Thus, the argument about “more manuscripts” does not inherently support the critical text position. If the majority of manuscripts fall within the Byzantine tradition and differ substantially from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the critical text’s foundation becomes narrower, calling into question its representativeness of the preserved text used by the church through history. In contrast, the TR’s grounding in the Byzantine tradition suggests continuity with the texts widely accepted and utilized in the church’s liturgical and doctrinal life. Therefore, Krans’ argument about manuscript deficiency fails to recognize that the critical text’s dependency on a minority textual tradition undermines its claim to represent the historically preserved text.
- Mischaracterization of the Textual History
Krans argues that Erasmus, the primary editor of the TR, engaged in conjectural emendation akin to modern critical methods. This assertion misrepresents Erasmus’ intent and the historical context in which he worked. Erasmus did not view his role as creating a new or innovative text; rather, he saw himself as preserving the text that had been handed down within the church. His work was rooted in a respect for the received text tradition, often cross-referencing the Greek and Latin manuscripts to preserve a faithful text.
Erasmus’ efforts to maintain continuity with the traditional text were fundamentally different from the conjectural approaches of modern textual critics. His editorial decisions reflected his belief in the church’s ability to recognize and preserve the correct text. Krans’ attempt to compare Erasmus’ work to modern critical emendation ignores Erasmus’ theological commitment to the text’s preservation through the church and his deliberate avoidance of introducing conjectural changes that had no basis in the manuscript tradition.
- Faith and Academic Standards
Krans asserts that the quality of modern textual criticism is independent of faith, suggesting that objective methods can stand apart from theological commitments. Confessional Bibliology, however, contends that faith and adherence to doctrinal standards are essential for evaluating Scripture’s reliability. The presuppositional foundation of textual criticism profoundly shapes its conclusions. When textual criticism operates without grounding in theological commitments—particularly those regarding divine preservation—it risks departing from the historical church’s convictions about Scripture.
Faith, in this context, is not an addendum to textual criticism but an essential foundation. Confessional Bibliology argues that without the doctrine of providential preservation, textual criticism is liable to drift into a purely humanistic or naturalistic methodology that overlooks God’s role in preserving His word. The Confessional Bibliology stance maintains that objective textual work must be done with an understanding that God has not left His word to human error alone but has actively preserved it through history. Therefore, textual criticism devoid of faith loses sight of the theological reality that God Himself has preserved His word through the generations.
Conclusion
The Confessional Bibliology position, grounded in the doctrines of providential preservation and verbal inspiration, upholds the Textus Receptus not merely as a historical artifact but as a divinely preserved text that has served the church faithfully. This preservation counters the Enlightenment-influenced approaches upheld by modern textual criticism, which often treats Scripture as a text subject solely to human intervention and reconstruction. Contrary to Krans’ critique, the TR’s acceptance remains both valid and necessary within a Reformed theological framework, serving as a preserved witness to God’s providential care over His word.
In sum, this confessional approach asserts that the TR is not to be judged solely by the empiricist and reductionist standards of modern textual criticism, which frequently neglect the role of faith and providence in the history of the text. The church, guided by the Holy Spirit, has preserved the Scriptures in a form that embodies not only the apostolic teachings but also the exact wording necessary for doctrinal fidelity. This view demands that we look at the text with theological and confessional eyes, rather than with the skeptical lens often promoted by contemporary critical methodologies.
This response does not merely defend the TR as an historical text but reaffirms it as a doctrinally robust witness to the preserved word of God. The Confessional Bibliology position, therefore, calls for a return to the doctrines of the church fathers and Reformers, recognizing in the TR a divinely preserved text fit for the teaching, correction, and sanctification of God’s people. By approaching Scripture through the lens of faith, we can appreciate the TR as more than a product of human tradition or historical circumstance—it stands as a testament to God’s enduring faithfulness in preserving His word for His church.
