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

The Dutch humanist Erasmus had been working for years on two projects: a collation of Greek texts and a fresh Latin New Testament. In 1512, he began his work on a fresh Latin New Testament. He collected all the Vulgate manuscripts he could find to create a critical edition. Then he polished the Latin. He declared, "It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin." ["Epistle 695" in "Collected Works of Erasmus Vol. 5: Letters 594 to 841, 1517-1518" (tr. R.A.B. Mynors and D.F.S. Thomson; annotated by James K. McConica; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976), 172.] In the earlier phases of the project, he never mentioned a Greek text: "My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense." ["Epistle 273" in Collected "Works of Erasmus Vol. 2: Letters 142 to 297, 1501-1514" (tr. R.A.B. Mynors and D.F.S. Thomson; annotated Wallace K. Ferguson; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976), 253.]

While his intentions for publishing a fresh Latin translation are clear, it is less clear why he included the Greek text. Though some speculate that he intended on producing a critical Greek text or that he wanted to beat the Complutensian Polyglot into print, there is no evidence to support this. Rather his motivations seems to be simpler: he included the Greek text to prove the superiority of his Latin version. He wrote, "There remains the New Testament translated by me, with the Greek facing, and notes on it by me." ["Epistle 305" in "Collected Works of Erasmus. Vol. 3: Letters 298 to 445, 1514-1516" (tr. R.A.B. Mynors and D.F.S. Thomson; annotated by James K. McConica; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976), 32.] 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." ["Epistle 337" in "Collected Works of Erasmus Vol. 3, 134.] Erasmus's new work was published by Froben of Basel in 1516 and thence became the first "published" Greek New Testament, the "Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Rot. Recognitum et Emendatum". He used manuscripts: 1, 1^rK, 2^e, 2^ap, 4, 7, 817. [W.W. Combs, "Erasmus and the textus receptus", DBSJ 1 (Spring 1996), 45. ] The second edition used the more familiar term "Testamentum" instead of "Instrumentum," and eventually became a major source for Luther's German translation. In second edition (1519) Erasmus used also Minuscule 3.

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. [W.W. Combs, Erasmus and the textus receptus, DBSJ 1 (Spring 1996), 45. ] 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.Bruce Metzger, "The Text of the New Testament", p. 99.]

With the third edition of Erasmus' Greek text (1522) the Comma Johanneum was included, because a single 16th-century Greek manuscript (Codex Montfortianus) 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.

The overwhelming success of Erasmus' Greek New Testament completely overshadowed the Latin text upon which he had focused. Many other publishers produced their own versions of the Greek New Testament over the next several centuries. Rather than doing their own critical work, most just relied on the well-known Erasmian text.

Robert Estienne, known as Stefanus (1503-1559), a printer from Paris, edited four times the Greek New Testament, 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551, the last in Geneva. The first two are among the neatest Greek texts known, and are called "O mirificam"; the third edition is a splendid masterpiece of typographical skill. It has critical apparatus in which quotted manuscripts reffered to the text. Manuscripts were marked by symbols (from α to ις). He used "Polyglotta Complutensis" (symbolized by α) and 15 Greek manuscripts. In this number manuscripts: Codex Bezae, Codex Regius, minuscules 4, 5, 6, 2817, 8, 9. The first step towards to modern Textual Criticism was made. The third edition is known as the Editio Regia; the edition of 1551 contains the Latin translation of Erasmus and the Vulgate, is not nearly as fine as the other three, and is exceedingly rare. It was in this edition that the division of the New Testament into verses was for the first time introduced.

Third edition of Estienne was used by Theodore Beza (1519-1605) and it was edited by him 9 times (1565-1604). The main text was a little changed, in crittical apparatus of second edition he used Codex Claromontanus and Syriac New Testament published by Emmanuel Tremellius w 1569. Codex Bezae was twice refferenced (as Codex Bezae and β' of Estienne).

Textual criticism and the Textus Receptus

The origin of the term "Textus Receptus" comes from the publisher's preface to the 1633 edition produced by the Elzevir brother in Amsterdam: "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". Over time, this term has been retroactively applied to Erasmus' editions, as his work served as the basis of the others.

John Mill (1645-1707), collatted textual variants from 82 Greek manuscripts. In his "Novum Testamentum Graecum, cum lectionibus variantibus MSS" (Oxford 1707) reprinted unchanged text of "Editio Regia", but in index he enumerated 30 000 textual variants. [T. Robertson, "An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament", Nashville: Broadman, 1925, pp. 107-108. ]

Shortly after edition of Mill, Daniel Whitby (1638-1725), attaced his work. According to him the authographs of the New Testament had the same text like Textus Receptus, and this text was never corrupted, but now the text of the Holy Scripture is endangered by 30 000 variants of Mill. Whitby claimed, that every place of the New Testament should be defended against variants of Mill. [D. Whitby, Examen variantium Lectionum Johannis Milli, London 1709. ]

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.

Defense 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."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), [http://mountainretreatorg.net/classics/inquiry1.html 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).]

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."ibid.", [http://mountainretreatorg.net/classics/inquiry5.html ch. 5] ]

Textus Receptus was defended by Burgon in his "The Revision Revised" (1881), by Edward Miller in "A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament". According to Burgon Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi are older than Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus. Peshitta originated from 2nd century. Miller was more careful in his defense.

Relationship to the Byzantine text

Textus Receptus was established on a basis of the Byzantine text-type, called also 'Majority text', and usually is identified with him by his followers. But Textus Receptus has some additions and variants which did not exist in the Byzantine text before the 16th century. The Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7 is well known example, but there are also other texts like: Matt 10:8; 27:35; Luke 17:36; John 3:25; Acts 8:37; 9:5; and some readings ("book of life" instead of "tree of life" in Revelation 22:19) which the Byzantine text did not have. In these cases the majority of manuscripts agree with the Alexandrian text-type against the Textus Receptus.

F.H.A. Scrivener (1813-1891) remarked that Matt. 22:28, 23:25, 27:52, 28:3, 4, 19, 20; Mark 7:18, 19, 26, 10:1, 12:22, 15:46; Luke 1:16, 61, 2:43, 9:1, 15, 11:49; John 1:28, 10:8, 13:20 are under the influence of Minuscule 1 (Caesarean text-type). Scrivener showed that some textes were incorporated from the Vulgate (f.e. Acts 9:6; Rev 17:4.8).
Daniel Wallace enumerated that in 1,838 places (1005 are translatable) Textus Receptus differs from the Byzantine text-type. [Daniel Wallace, "Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text", Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September, 1989, p. 276. ]

See also

; Other text-types
* Alexandrian text-type
* Byzantine text-type
* Caesarean text-type
* Western text-type ; Other articles
* New Testament
* Vulgate
* King-James-Only Movement

Notes

Futher reading

* S. P. Tregelles, "The Printed Text of the Greek New Testament", London 1854.
* Bruce M. Metzger, B. D. Ehrman, "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration", Oxford University Press, 2005.
* W. W. Combs, "Erasmus and the textus receptus", DBSJ 1 (Spring 1996).
* Daniel B. Wallace, "Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text". "Bibliotheca Sacra" 146 (1989): 270-290.

External links

; Modern Textual Criticism
* [http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html The Textus Receptus at the Encyclopedia of Textual Criticism]
* [http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/ERASMUS.PDF W.W. Combs, Erasmus and the textus receptus, DBSJ 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53.]
* [http://www.martinarhelger.de/textgrundlage.pdf M. Arhelger, Die Textgrundlage des Neues Testaments, 2006] de icon
* [http://www.freewebtown.com/bibletexte/pdf/la_bible_16e_siecle__michel_berger.pdf La Bible au XVI' Siècle] fr icon
* [http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus] from Bible Research
* [http://www.bible-researcher.com/hodges-farstad.html The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text] Bible Research ; Defense of Textus Receptus
* [http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/tr-art.pdf A Brief Look at the Textus Receptus]
* [http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/isthereceived.htm Is the Received Text Based on a Few Late Manuscripts? ]