Book Review of
The Received Text: A Field Guide
By Taylor DeSoto
Kept Pure Press, 2024
(Exact page count not listed)
1. Bibliographic Information
•Title: The Received Text: A Field Guide
•Author: Taylor DeSoto
•Publisher: Kept Pure Press (2024)
•Length: Not explicitly stated in the text, though it comprises thirteen main chapters plus an introduction and foreword.
2. Overview / Introduction
Taylor DeSoto’s The Received Text: A Field Guide is a spirited and detailed foray into the question, “Which Bible should Protestants read—and why?” Centering his argument on the historic “Received Text” (often called the Textus Receptus, or TR), DeSoto contends that the modern Critical Text used in most contemporary Bibles represents a theological and methodological departure from classic Protestant orthodoxy. He aims to provide a user-friendly, though unapologetically confessional, guide to understanding the textual history of Scripture, the nature of textual criticism, and how that history intersects with the doctrinal claims of the Christian faith.
DeSoto frames his discussion with the premise that God’s people have always possessed the authentic text of Scripture—providentially preserved and embraced by the church in the wake of the Reformation. In contrast, he says, the modern Critical Text movement hinges on Enlightenment-driven presuppositions that ultimately erode confidence in the fixed words of Scripture. By weaving theological reflection with historical commentary and practical guidance, the volume seeks to equip readers—pastors, seminarians, and interested laypersons—to think critically about which Greek and Hebrew texts lie behind their English (or other modern-language) translations.
3. Chapter-by-Chapter (or Thematic) Summary
1.Introduction & Overview: DeSoto introduces his core claim: that a “textual discussion” is first and foremost theological. He orients the reader to four main pillars—(1) Theology, (2) Textual Scholarship, (3) Translation, and (4) Practical Application—and insists that confusion arises when these categories are conflated or misunderstood.
2.Two Foundations: Lays out the fundamental conflict between two conceptions of biblical preservation:
•The Received Text view, which asserts the church has always had access to the Bible’s exact words.
•The Modern Critical Text view, which sees Scripture’s text as in need of ongoing “reconstruction.”
3.An Array of Views: Surveys various positions—Majority Text, Ecclesiastical/Confessional Text, KJV-Only positions, and more. DeSoto clarifies that the Received Text position differs significantly from a strict “KJV-Onlyism.”
4.Translation: Argues that accurate translation, though challenging, is not impossible—indeed, the King James Bible exemplifies an accessible, faithful rendering of the original languages, even in its Early Modern English.
5.Practical Application: Highlights that one’s textual stance influences both personal devotion and corporate worship. DeSoto argues that a single, standardized text fosters unity, theological clarity, and a strong sense of continuity with the church’s past.
6.Two Methods: Contrasts modern textual eclecticism (typified by Nestle-Aland/UBS editions) with Reformation-era collection efforts (Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus). DeSoto contends the older approach was “text-receptive,” affirming the Bible was never lost, whereas modern critics rely on an uncertain quest for “earliest recoverable readings.”
7.Arguing for the TR: Sets forth a positive case for the Received Text. DeSoto positions the TR not as a monolithic “golden edition” but as a family of closely aligned printed texts that reflect the authentic manuscript tradition recognized in the post-Reformation church.
8.Critiques of the TR: Addresses the familiar question “Which TR?” and contends that the differences among TR editions are minimal—especially compared to the divergences between Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
9.The KJV is Not Dangerous: DeSoto surveys several “KJV-Only” views, distinguishing them from a broader “TR-friendly” position. He argues that only the extreme “re-inspiration” stance is truly problematic, and that the majority of KJV users are nowhere near that view.
10.Critically Bad Theology: Critiques the stance of prominent evangelical textual critics (Dan Wallace, Dirk Jongkind, etc.) for conceding that the exact original wording of Scripture is beyond our reach, leading to a “muddled” practical theology of Scripture.
11.So-Called TR Onlyism: Challenges the tendency to lump all TR advocates under pejorative labels. DeSoto encourages a more nuanced vocabulary such as “Confessional Text” or “Ecclesiastical Text.”
12.Defending the KJV: Explains the historical and literary reasons for championing the King James Version, underscoring that it remains the world’s most-read English Bible translation despite the rise of numerous modern versions.
13.Reclaiming an Inheritance: Closes by exhorting readers to “take back” the older Protestant heritage of a stable text, rejecting a modern academic consensus that has, in DeSoto’s view, sown disunity and doubt in the church.
4. Strengths
1.Clear Theological Emphasis
DeSoto underscores that textual criticism is not merely a historical or philological enterprise but is inseparable from doctrinal presuppositions about inspiration and preservation. By firmly rooting his claims in confessional Protestantism, he brings a refreshing clarity to a conversation often sidetracked by purely evidentialist arguments.
2.Concise Analysis of “Positions”
The sections laying out various views—Majority Text, Received Text, Modern Critical Text, and KJV-Only—help readers grasp that the textual discussion is far more nuanced than a simple “KJV vs. Everything Else” dichotomy. These chapters are especially helpful for newcomers wanting a lay of the land.
3.Engaging Historical Context
DeSoto deftly places the Reformation-era print editions of the Greek text (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the Elzevirs) against the backdrop of historical events like the fall of Constantinople and the invention of the printing press. Such context illuminates how God’s providential workings and technological innovations intersected to produce a widely received text.
4.Pastoral Concern for Church Unity
His advocacy for a unified, standardized text stands out. While some may see it as an idealistic throwback, DeSoto’s pastoral reasoning—that multiple competing translations can cause confusion in corporate worship and small-group Bible study—deserves serious consideration.
5.Attentiveness to Modern Scholarly Admissions
By citing top textual scholars (e.g., Dan Wallace, Peter Gurry, D. C. Parker), DeSoto pinpoints key concessions—namely, that the modern text-critical quest is methodologically incapable of proving we have the actual original text. This candid look at the limitations of current methods offers valuable insight often overlooked in popular-level discussions.
5. Weaknesses
1.Minimal Engagement with Alternative Pro-TR Scholarship
DeSoto positions his argument strongly within a confessional Reformed approach but could have enriched the conversation by engaging more thoroughly with other contemporary supporters of the TR who deploy broader evidential analyses (e.g., some Majority Text proponents who share a near-TR stance but prefer different translational nuances). A deeper cross-comparison might bolster rather than dilute his case.
2.Limited Discussion of Old Testament Textual Issues
While The Received Text: A Field Guide does mention the Masoretic text, it devotes comparatively little space to how the Old Testament text was transmitted or how Reformed confessions addressed OT preservation. Greater attention to the Hebrew textual tradition—perhaps paralleling the genealogies of the Greek text—would offer a more holistic treatment.
3.Heavy Reliance on Reformation-Era Consensus
The rhetorical pivot—“This text was used universally during the Reformation period, so it must be the original”—may read as too broad a historical assumption for some. Although DeSoto references scholars like Francis Turretin, further primary-source citations from 16th- and 17th-century theological debates about textual variants (especially among Protestant scholastics) might strengthen the claim that there was an unbroken continuity of usage.
4.Terminology and Audience
While DeSoto aims to be accessible, the text at times juggles specialized terminology (“directionality,” “Ausgangstext,” “textual flow diagrams”). Readers without any background in Greek or textual criticism might find these discussions occasionally dense. A more robust glossary of critical terms would make the work more user-friendly.
5.Potential Overstatement
DeSoto’s zeal for the Received Text sometimes risks overstating the “danger” of the modern Critical Text. Although he quotes mainstream scholars admitting uncertainty, not all “Critical Text” advocates adopt the same level of skepticism. A more fine-grained critique might more charitably nuance these differences.
6. Conclusion / Final Assessment
At the doctoral or scholarly level, one must appreciate both the depth and breadth of The Received Text: A Field Guide. DeSoto’s greatest contribution is his insistence that textual criticism is inevitably theological, challenging a widespread view that modern academic methods are “neutral” or “purely scientific.” He lucidly demonstrates that the choice between the Received Text and the evolving Critical Text is never merely about counting manuscripts—it involves fundamental questions about divine providence, church history, and the believer’s confidence in possessing the very words of Scripture.
DeSoto writes with considerable passion, occasionally adopting polemical rhetoric to dismantle what he sees as the “post-Protestant” approach to textual scholarship. Yet behind that fervor is a genuine pastoral concern for ordinary Christians who may not realize the underlying assumptions shaping the editorial notes in their Bibles. Whether one ultimately agrees with DeSoto’s pleas for “reclaiming an inheritance” via the Received Text, readers will find his theological lens compelling and provocative.
In a publishing landscape crowded with modern biblical scholarship, The Received Text: A Field Guide successfully reorients the conversation around questions of confessional heritage, ecclesiastical usage, and the character of divine preservation. Students of Reformation studies, pastors wrestling with translational choices, and scholars examining the intersection of theology and textual science will benefit from engaging DeSoto’s arguments—even if only to refine and fortify their own positions.
Recommended for:
•Advanced students of church history and textual criticism.
•Seminary-trained pastors and elders seeking clarity on text/translation issues.
•Reformed/Protestant Christians who value confessional perspectives.
Overall Rating: 4/5
A vigorous defense of the Received Text tradition, distinguished by its confessional convictions and acute observations about modern text-critical uncertainty. While a more thorough engagement with countervailing evidential views could strengthen the argument, DeSoto’s work remains an invaluable resource for those exploring why many Christians—both past and present—continue to champion “the text that Christianized all of the Western world.”
