“This
matter of feeling that the great letter uncils…
that these are the oldest and best, this is a fiction, they aren’t,
they aren’t the oldest. Today we can go at least two hundred
behind the oldest of them. We’ve found other manuscripts, in the main
they agree, but these others aren’t the oldest. And especially in the
so-called missionary translations, the old Latin (now this is the Latin
before Jerome and his Vulgate), and the old Syriac
(the Syriac before the year four-hundred),
and the Coptic (the Egyptian language of about that same time) which
goes back to much earlier texts. Here we have readings that time and
again are different from the great letter Uncils,
but agree with what the Textus Receptus has. You see what I am saying.
So now its been the habit to say when the Textus Receptus
reads the same as these older texts do… When the great letter Uncils go one way, but the Textus
Receptus and maybe one of the old versions
or some of the Papri stand opposed to
them, then we can say in this case though it is not like the big letter
Uncils the Byzantine text has most probably
preserved the original apostolic work. So I in my teaching and in my
writing make strong allowances for that. I will very often disagree
with the way Nestle or the United Bible Society text prints and reads
the text. And I will say that there is
apparently no reason why we should depart from the old received text.
That’s saying something entirely different from saying the old Received
Text is the Divinely inspired one. It is the
historicly correct one. That’s what I say.”