Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, Received Text-KJV, Dispensational

Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, Received Text-KJV, Dispensational

Monday, February 6, 2023

What is The Textus-Receptus/Received Text and Confessional Bibliology?

 

What is the Textus Receptus?

Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name retroactively given to the succession of printed Greek language texts of the New Testament which constituted the textual base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale (1526), Myles Coverdale’s Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1537), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Bible (1557 - 60), The Bishops' Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611), and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe such as the Spanish Reina-Valera translation and the Czech Bible of Kralice. The Textus Receptus has been translated into hundreds of languages. (See Also The Word of God for All Nations) The origin of the term "Textus Receptus" comes from the publisher’s preface to the 1633 edition produced by Abraham Elzevir and his nephew Bonaventure who were printers at Leiden:

Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus. Translated "so you hold the text, now received by all, in which nothing corrupt."

The two words, "textum" and "receptum", were modified from the accusative to the nominative case to render textus receptus. Over time, this term has been retroactively applied to Erasmus’ editions, as his work served as the basis of others that followed. Many supporters of the Textus Receptus will name any manuscript which agrees with the Textus Receptus Greek as a "Textus Receptus" type manuscript. This type of association can also apply to early church quotations and language versions.

A Rich and Full History

Textus Receptus type manuscripts and versions have existed as the majority of texts for almost 2000 years.

Greek manuscript evidences point to a Byzantine/Textus Receptus majority.

  • 85% of papyri used Textus Receptus type manuscripts, only 13 represent text of Westcott-Hort type
  • 97% of uncial manuscripts used Textus Receptus type manuscripts, only 9 manuscripts used the Westcott-Hort type
  • 99% of minuscule manuscripts used Textus Receptus, only 23 used the Westcott-Hort type
  • 100% of lectionaries used Textus Receptus type manuscripts.

The Age of Printing

Although six chapters of the Gospel of John were printed at Venice as early as 1504, by Aldus Manutius, and the whole of that gospel was printed at Tubingen in Suabia, in 1512, these editions are interesting only as literary curiosities, for though they constituted the first portion of the Greek Testament ever committed to the press, they exercised no influence whatever on succeeding editions.

The first printed Greek New Testament was the Complutensian Polyglot (1514) but was not published until eight years later. Erasmus' edition was the second Greek New Testament which he called the Novum Instrumentum omne, printed and published in (1516). As early as 1505, Erasmus wrote to a friend;

“I shall sit down to Holy Scripture with my whole heart, and devote the rest of my life to it...[A]ll these three years I have been working entirely at Greek, and have not been playing with it” (Froude, The Life and Letters, p. 87).

Erasmus began working directly on the text much before 1507. Froude wrote that years before the text appeared, it was being prepared.

“He had been at work over the Greek MSS. for many years. The work was approaching completion” (Froude, The Life and Letters, p. 93).

Frederick Nolan, writing in 1815, states, in addition to the manuscripts which Erasmus owned or had seen himself, he gathered readings from various European nations through his broad friendships in universities, libraries, and monasteries. He noted; 

“I have a room full of letters from men of learning...” “[W]e find by the dates of his letters that he was corresponding at length and elaborately with the learned men of his time on technical points of scholarship, Biblical criticism...” (Froude, The Life and Letters, pp. 377, 394).

In 1512 Erasmus had been in negotiation with Badius Ascensius of Paris to publish the Vulgate of Jerome and a new edition of Adagia. It did not happen, and Erasmus did not continue contacts with Badius. While many critics of Erasmus and the Textus Receptus claim that Erasmus used only a small handful of manuscripts, this is not a correct hypothesis, because the libraries and scriptoriums throughout Europe would not simply give away manuscripts, therefore Erasmus travelled vastly to examine many manuscripts and wrote down variants, and thus had no need to personally acquire the manuscripts or have them on hand when he penned the Novum Instrumentum omne. Erasmus updated his 1516 "Textus Receptus" in 1519, and again in 1522, 1527 and his final edition in 1535. Stephanus also edited the Textus Receptus in 1546, 1549, 1550 (Editio Regia), and 1551. Theodore Beza edited the Textus Receptus nine times between 1565 and 1604. The Authorized Version translators used the 1598 of Beza, a disciple of John Calvin, who both had access to Waldensian versions and manuscripts. This "family" of texts is also known as the Antiochian Text, Byzantine Text, Syrian Text, Greek Vulgate, and (until the 1980's) the Majority Text.

The Textus Receptus edited by Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, and first published in 1881, was based upon the 1598 of Beza, but departs in 190 places (see 190 Variations in Scrivener’s 1881 Greek New Testament from Beza's 1598 Textus Receptus), following at times, earlier readings of Erasmus and Stephanus, and sometimes following the printing errors of the original 1611 Authorized Version. The title on the cover for the Textus Receptus printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society is Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ which is Greek for The New Testament or The New Covenant. The 1598 Greek Textus Receptus of Beza and the 1525 Hebrew Masoretic Text of Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah, are the closest printed editions of the Greek and Hebrew texts. However the unprinted edition underlying the KJV is the most accurate form of the TR, departing from Beza in about 20 places. Had the KJV translators published this edition, there would be no King James Only Movement and KJV and TR positions would follow that edition. Scrivener tried to produce this text but it falls short in some minor places. We believe that the King James Version is the most accurate representation of the Textus Receptus and is without translational error. Any translation faithful to this text is THE word of God by default. We do not believe that the King James Version has any secondary inspiration. Our hope is to have the "TR" translated into every language and to help revive a trust once again in the true words of God. This site also exposes corrupt Greek and Hebrew texts and versions based upon them.

Modern "textual criticism" is focused on a narrowing of the field to a few corrupted and rejected manuscripts sidestepping the huge amount of Greek and Latin manuscripts and the early church witnesses as unimportant, only to be used when they can be referenced to try to give some support to the Vaticanus primacy corruption. It really is an anachronism fallacy (false definition) to speak of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza to be doing textual criticism. Since their value were in general opposite those of the Griesbach to Hort to Metzger to Wallace confusions. They based themselves on mostly the Greek and Latin manuscripts and the early church witnesses with some faith-consistent logical and grammatical type of internal evidence considerations. This is essentially, the opposite of "textual criticism" as used today which has a bias presupposition towards Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

The 1525 Hebrew Masoretic Text of Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah, published by Daniel Bomberg, is considered to be the Old Testament Textus Receptus but departs in a few places (see Variations in 1525 Hebrew Masoretic Text from the accepted modern Hebrew Masoretic Text). It is the text received by the Hebrews as the word of God. While most use the term Textus Receptus in a New Testament sense, this also applies to the text received by the traditionalists, the Masoretics, and their text handed down. The Masoretic Text is widely used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles. Discoveries in modern times such as the Dead Sea Scrolls have revealed the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 BC. 

The Confessional/Received Text (TR proponent) view has nothing to do with what is commonly called King James Onlyism. 

4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God who is truth itself, the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.
2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 John 5:9

5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole which is to give all glory to God, the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet not withstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
John 16:13,14; 1 Corinthians 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20, 27
6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
2 Timothy 3:15-17; Galatians 1:8,9;  John 6:45; 1 Corinthians 2:9-12; 1 Corinthians 11:13, 14; 1 Corinthians 14:26,40
7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.
2 Peter 3:16; Psalms 19:7; Psalms 119:130
8. The Old Testament in Hebrew which was the native language of the people of God of old, and the New Testament in Greek which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations, being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
Romans 3:2; Isaiah 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39; 1 Corinthians 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 28; Colossians 3:16
9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture which is not manifold, but one, it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly.
2 Peter 1:20, 21; Acts 15:15, 16
10. The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.
Matthew 22:29, 31, 32; Ephesians 2:20; Acts 28:23

Within the above paragraphs we have outlined for us some important concepts concerning the nature of Scripture.  They are:

  • Scripture’s authority is self-attesting
  • The knowledge that we receive of the authority of the Scriptures has,
    • for its objective cause the Holy Bible itself which proves its own divinity by its own beauty, and by its own doings
    • for its subjective or efficient cause the Holy Ghost who confirms and seals to our souls the testimony of God
    • for its instrumental cause, the Universal Church (Theopneustia, p. 136) (1 Tim 3:15)
  • Scripture is the foundation for all reasoning
  • God has Providentially Preserved his word and kept it pure in all ages (Isa 59:21, Ps 12:6, 7, Rom 3:1-2, 1 Tim 3:15)
  • The authentic texts are the Textus Receptus (the Greek text used by the Reformers), and the Bomberg Hebrew Bible (the Hebrew text used by the Reformers)
  • The authentic texts are the final arbiter in all manners of controversies, including textual criticism
  • Faithful translations of the authentic texts are necessary

These biblical principles should be our guide in how we reason about Scripture.  This old idea was foundational to the Reformers’ view of Scripture, but has over the past 200 years been abandoned for the  rationalist/empiricist view of Scripture.  Today many people will claim that basing our reasoning about Greek manuscript differences and textual variants on Scripture is circular reasoning.  And normally this would be a problem.  However, all appeals to a final authority are inherently circular because nothing can be more authoritative than our final authority.  For the Confessional Textual View, Scripture is the final authority.  For the modern textual view, man reasoning independently from Scripture about Scripture is the final authority.  These two views can be expressed as follows:

Preservationist Textual Criticism –
PTC is the view that God’s word has been kept pure in all ages by God’s providential preservation. (WCF/2LBCF 1.8) It can be simply expressed as, only Scripture can attest to what is Scripture.

Restorationist Textual Criticism –
RTC is the view that the text of Scripture must be restored because it has become corrupted over time either through carelessness or deliberate corruption by heretics. This is a rejection of the Confessional view that the text of Scripture was kept pure in all ages and an affirmation of naturalistic preservation.

at