textus receptus

Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament to be published; a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus in 1516, on the basis of some six manuscripts, containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus's edition differed markedly from the classic form of that text.

History of the Textus Receptus

Erasmus' first edition of the Greek New Testament was prepared in haste, because his publisher Johann Froben wished to beat into print the Greek New Testament being prepared in Spain as part of the great Complutensian Polyglot Bible project. Typographical errors attributed to the rush to complete the work abounded in the published text. Erasmus also lacked a complete copy of the book of Revelation and was forced to translate the last six verses back into Greek from the Latin Vulgate in order to finish his edition. Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate, or as quoted in the Church Fathers; and consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text, it differs in nearly two thousand readings from standard form of that text-type; as represented by the "Majority Text" of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace 1989). The edition was a sell-out commercial success; and was reprinted in 1519, with most - though not all - the typographical errors corrected.

Erasmus had been studying Greek New Testament manuscripts for many years, in the Netherlands, France, England and Switzerland, noting their many variants; but he only had six Greek manuscripts immediately accessible to him in Basel. They all dated from the 12th Century or later, and only one came from outside the mainstream Byzantine tradition. Consequently most modern scholars consider his text to be of dubious quality^[1]

With the third edition of Erasmus' Greek text (1522) the Comma Johanneum was included, because a single 16th-century Greek manuscript had subsequently been found to contain it, though Erasmus had expressed doubt as to the authenticity of the passage in his Annotations. Popular demand for Greek New Testaments led to a flurry of further authorized and unauthorized editions in the early sixteenth century; almost all of which were based on Erasmus's work and incorporated his particular readings, although typically also making a number of minor changes of their own.

Textual criticism and the Textus Receptus

Although used in general to refer to the whole series of Greek editions derived from Erasmus; the term "Textus Receptus" also has a specific reference in New Testament textual criticism - denoting one of two particular New Testament editions: the one produced by Parisian Robertus Stephanus in 1550; and another produced by the Elzevir brothers in Amsterdam in 1624 (reprinted in 1633). The name itself derives from a phrase contained in the publisher's preface to the 1633 edition of the Elzevirs' text, textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, translated "so you hold the text, now received by all." The two words, textum and receptum, were modified from the accusative to the nominative case to render textus receptus. Where Greek New Testament manuscripts are collated to record their variant readings, it is one of these two printed texts that has generally been employed as the reference standard.

The majority of textual critical scholars since the late 19th Century, have adopted an eclectic approach to the Greek New Testament; with the most weight given to the earliest extant manuscripts which tend mainly to be Alexandrian in character; the resulting eclectic Greek text departing from the Textus Receptus in around 6,000 readings. A significant minority of textual scholars, however, maintain the priority of the Byzantine text-type; and consequently prefer the "Majority Text". No school of textual scholarship now continues to defend the priority of the Textus Receptus; although this position does still find adherents amongst the King-James-Only Movement, and other Protestant groups hostile to the whole discipline of text criticism - as applied to scripture; and suspicious of any departure from Reformation traditions.

Defence of the Textus Receptus

Frederick Nolan, a 19th century historian and Greek and Latin scholar, spent 28 years attempting to trace the Textus Receptus to apostolic origins. He was an ardent advocate of the supremacy of the Textus Receptus over all other editions of the Greek New Testament, and argued that the first editors of the printed Greek New Testament intentionally selected the texts they did because of their superiority and disregarded other texts which represented other text-types because of their inferiority.

It is not to be conceived that the original editors of the [Greek] New Testament were wholly destitute of plan in selecting those manuscripts, out of which they were to form the text of their printed editions. In the sequel it will appear, that they were not altogether ignorant of two classes of manuscripts; one of which contains the text which we have adopted from them; and the other that text which has been adopted by M. Griesbach.^[2]

Regarding Erasmus, Nolan stated:

Nor let it be conceived in disparagement of the great undertaking of Erasmus, that he was merely fortuitously right. Had he barely undertaken to perpetuate the tradition on which he received the sacred text he would have done as much as could be required of him, and more than sufficient to put to shame the puny efforts of those who have vainly labored to improve upon his design. [. . .] With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable that he was acquainted with every variety which is known to us, having distributed them into two principal classes, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript. And he has specified the positive grounds on which he received the one and rejected the other.^[3]

See also

• Majority Text
• New Testament
• Byzantine text-type
• Alexandrian text-type
• Western text-type
• Vulgate
• King-James-Only Movement

Notes

1. ^ Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 99.
2. ^ An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament; in which the Greek Manuscripts are newly classed; the Integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated; and the Various Readings traced to their Origin (London, 1815), ch. 1. The sequel mentioned in the text is Nolan's Supplement to an Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament; containing the Vindication of the Principles employed in its Defence (London, 1830).
3. ^ ibid., ch. 5

• Daniel B. Wallace. 'Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text'. Bibliotheca Sacra 146 (1989): 270-290.

External links

• Brother, Are You Saved? A discourse on Textus Receptus and the origin of scripture by Troy Organ, PhD
• Details some problems with the various Texti Recepti and the King James Version
• God Wrote Only ONE Bible (The KJV)
• The King James Only Movement (Criticism of)
• 'All translateable variants between the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text' http://www.bible-researcher.com/hodges-farstad.html

Donate to Wikimedia