Textus Receptus

Subsequent Textus Receptus editions constituted the main Greek translation-base for the King James Version, the Spanish Reina-Valera translation, the Czech Bible of Kralice, the Portuguese Almeida Recebida, the Dutch Statenvertaling, the Russian Synodal Bible and many other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western, Northern and Central Europe.

However, critical scholarship today views these manuscripts as being more likely being influenced by the printed Textus Receptus editions, instead of them being a source for the readings of Erasmus.

"[17] He further demonstrated the reason for the inclusion of the Greek text when defending his work: "But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator's clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep.

Erasmus also lacked a complete copy of the Book of Revelation and translated the last six verses back into Greek from the Latin Vulgate to finish his edition.

"[22] 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 but typically also making a number of minor changes of their own.

[27] Simon de Colines (1480 – 1546) printed an edition of the Textus Receptus, which was primarily based upon the work of Erasmus and the Complutensian Polyglot.

[28] The origin of the term Textus Receptus comes from the publisher's preface to the 1633 edition produced by Bonaventure and his nephew Abraham Elzevir who were partners in a printing business at Leiden.

The preface reads, Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus ("so you hold the text, now received by all, in which [is] nothing corrupt").

[29] In 1894, Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener produced a significant Greek edition of the Textus Receptus, based on the textual variants that the translators of the King James Version (KJV) had utilized.

This resulted in a Greek text that, while rooted in the tradition of the Textus Receptus, uniquely aligned with the particular readings of the King James Version.

In his Novum Testamentum Graecum, cum lectionibus variantibus MSS (Oxford 1707) he reprinted the unchanged text of the Editio Regia, but in the index he enumerated 30,000 textual variants.

[32] Shortly after Mill published his edition, Daniel Whitby (1638–1725) attacked his work by asserting that the text of the New Testament had never been corrupted and thus equated autographs with the Textus Receptus.

[33] Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687–1752) edited in 1725 Prodromus Novi Testamenti Graeci Rectè Cautèque Adornandi and in 1734 Novum Testamentum Graecum.

Bengel divided manuscripts into families and subfamilies and favoured the principle of lectio difficilior potior ("the more difficult reading is the stronger").

[35] Frederick von Nolan, a 19th-century historian and Greek and Latin scholar, spent 28 years attempting to trace the Textus Receptus to apostolic origins.

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.

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.

He goes so far as to conclude that Erasmus must have been providentially guided when he introduced Latin Vulgate readings into his Greek text;[39] and even argues for the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum.

Although others have defended it per se, they are not acknowledged textual critics (such as Theodore Letis and David Hocking) or their works are not on a scholarly level (such as Terence H. Brown and D. A.

[43] Those who still advocate the use of the Textus Receptus often rely upon a theological stance of supernatural providential preservation, arguing that a reliance upon naturalism to establish the text of the New Testament is contrary to divine revelation.

Additionally, multiple of the agreements between the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine text are very significant, such as the reading of "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 and the inclusion of the Story of the Adulteress.

[60] The text (with the comma in italics and enclosed by brackets) in the King James Bible reads:7For there are three that beare record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.]

8[And there are three that beare witnesse in earth], the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one.In the Greek Textus Receptus (TR), the verse reads thus:[62]ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι.The earliest surviving Latin manuscripts containing the comma date back to the 5th to 7th centuries.

[70] The Codex Vaticanus contains these dots around 1 John 5:7, however according to McDonald, G. R, it is far more likely that the scribe had encountered other variants in the verse than the Johannine comma, which is not attested in Greek manuscripts until the 14th century.

[58] The first undisputed work to quote the Comma Johanneum as an actual part of the Epistle's text appears to be the 4th century Latin homily Liber Apologeticus, probably written by Priscillian of Ávila (died 385), or his close follower Bishop Instantius.

'"[71] Nevertheless, other scholars believe that he was giving an allegorical interpretation of the three elements mentioned in the uncontested part of the verse instead of quoting the Johannine comma itself.

And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.In the Greek of the Textus Receptus, the verse reads thus:ειπεν δε ο φιλιππος ει πιστευεις εξ ολης της καρδιας εξεστιν αποκριθεις δε ειπεν πιστευω τον υιον του θεου ειναι τον ιησουν χριστονErasmus himself decided to include the verse in his edition of the Greek text due to its presence in the Latin Vulgate of his day and due to being in the margin of Minuscule 2816 (15th century), which he used in his compilation of the Textus Receptus.

[98] Bart D. Ehrman concurs in Misquoting Jesus, adding that the passage contains many words and phrases otherwise alien to John's writing.

[100] However, advocates of the Byzantine priority theory and those who view the Textus Receptus as the most accurate text have attempted to argue for the Johannine authorship of the story.

[124] Some such as Clark have argued that the words "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" should be included in Acts 9 because they fit Lukan style more accurately.