Textus Receptus

What they don't tell you in "King James Only" Class

Textus Receptus, which means "Received Text,"  is how we refer to the first published Greek text of the New Testament. Many have the idea, that this is a very ancient Greek manuscript, but that is not the case.  The name was applied to the text, sometime after 1633.

When one hears that the KJV was based on the Textus Receptus, one gets the idea that we are dealing with some specific document, but such, is not the case. There are several hundred Textus Receptus, all similar, but not identical. None of these TRs, agree exactly with any existing text or manuscript.

Early in the sixteenth century, Cardinal Ximenes decided to produce a Greek and Latin edition of the New Testament, which became known as Complutensian Polyglot. It was printed in 1514 -- but it was not published until after 1520.

A printer named John Froben heard of the Complutension Polyglot, he decided there was an opportunity for him, if he could beat it into print. Froben approached Desiderius Erasmus, a notable humanistic scholar. In the fall of 1515 work began, and the thing was set to press February of 1516. This was an amazing accomplishment, both the creation of this new text, and the creation of the Greek type, necessary to print it. The first printing sold out, and by 1519 a new edition was required. Three more followed, each improved over the former. One would expect the need for improvements, on such a rush job.

The downside of this haste, was that the work contained thousands of typographical errors, and it was poorly edited from a few late manuscripts. Erasmus, could only work from manuscripts he could actually get his hands on.  He could only get his hands on six. There were allegedly thousands available at the time, but  he could only get his hands on six. That Erasmus could not have looked at thousands, one only needs to consider, that there was no internet, no copy machines or faxes, and these things were valuable, and people didn't just hand them out. Consider also, what it would take, to look over thousands of manuscripts, in a foriegn and ancient language, hand written, and in poor shape, and study all of these in one year. Now, of the six that Erasmus had access to, three were what is known as miniscules. They are what they sound like, tiny, incomplete, fragments, not full manuscripts. Further, Erasmus could not distinguish which words were supposed to be part of the texts, and which were just scribes notes. People wrote on these things, the same way people write in the margins of bibles today. Some of these notes, were incorporated into Erasmus' work.

So, how do we know that these things are notes, and not part of the original Greek manuscripts? Well these six manuscripts that Erasmus worked from, none were all that old. The texts he used, according to the standard manuscript identification system are: 2e, 2ap,.) and 1r, while the miniscules he had were : 1eap, 4ap, and 7p. Now 7p is 12th, perhaps 12th century, while the rest range from the 12th through the 15th century. Modern archaeology has discovered much older manuscripts and fragments, some going into the 1st century. For example, codex siniaticus, discovered in 1859, was written approximately in 340 A.D. There are many others, discovered primarily in the 19th and 20th centuries, which are way older than anything Erasmus had to work from. The things which we suspect of being notes in Erasmus' text, are all absent in every early Greek manuscript.

While many do not trust modern translations of the bible, the fact is, that the King James Bible, was translated by a humanistic Roman Catholic scholar, in a hurry, using a few modern Greek manuscripts. Some of the verbiage in Erasmus text, had no Greek behind them Erasmus simply didn't have the Greek to work from, so, he did what he could. He took the Latin vulgate (which itself had been translated from Greek), and translated it into Greek, to fill in the holes.

Erasmus had only one Greek text of Revelation, and it was missing the last page, which contained the final six verses of the book. He did the only thing he could, he referred to the Latin Vulgate Bible.

Now, most people who think they are reading the 1611 King James Version, are not. Most are reading one of many revisions, most likely the 1881 revision, or perhaps the 1769 version. If the 1611 version was really God's word and the best version, why revise it in over 36,000 places? Now, here is an interesting quote:

"But instead of a Revised version of the long accepted English Bible, the Committee brought forth (so far at least as the New Testament was concerned) a New Version. This fact was not disclosed by them. The "Preface to the Edition of A.D. 1885" gives no indication of it; but through the vigilance of certain godly and scholarly men (Dean Burgon in particular) the important fact was discerned and brought to light that the Committee had produced, not a Revised Version (though that was the name given it) but a New Version, which was a translation of a "New Greek Text."  - Philip Mauro - 1924

So, not only was the 1611 version based on recent documents, but most KJV enthusiasts, are reading a more modern translation, of an entirely different text. The difference between them and those who read modern translations such as the NASB, is the they are reading a form of English, which they do not understand as well, and that based on an inferior Greek text, lacking modern advances in scholarship and archaeology. Remember that I told you that Erasmus did not have the last page of Revelation? Well, compare the following verses:

Notice how close those compare? That is a typical King James Version like you would buy today, not the 1611 version. They have revised it to the point, that you can see, there are not many significant differences. This should demonstrate to those who are King James fanatics, and those who are King James phobics, that they are not really very different. It is understandable then, that the Textus Receptus has significant flaws. What is remarkable, is that in spite of these limitations, God's message remains intact.

In the following verse(s), here is a more significant difference between KJV and the NASB:

Now, those say different things. We know of no Greek manuscript that can be translated as it is in the KJV. This is apparently Erasmus injecting his doctrine into the text. While this is a serious change, it does not effect any doctrine of the Bible. This again, is a demonstration that despite flaws, the message of the Bible remains intact. We need to understand, it is the message that is God's Word, not the book, the version, the paper and ink.

Now, remember that I mentioned that the Textus Receptus was not one document, but itself, had hundreds of versions? Well, the versions underlying the 1611 KJV, was Beza's editions, published between 1565 and 1611. The Stephanus version also had it's influence.   Note, that this is nearly 100 years after Erasmus first wrote it.

The next thing to know, is where the King James come from. Was it a translation into English from the Beza and Stephanus editions? No, it wasn't even that. The King James translation committee was instructed to stay as close as possible to the previous standard Bible, known as the Bishop's Bible. The Bishop's Bible, was based on the Great Bible, and that was based on the work of Tyndale. These versions span about 100 years, and the English language was changing fast.  We think of the King James as having an archaic form of English. It may surprise you to know, that the 1611 Version, was archaic English, when it came out.

So far, we have only been talking about the KJV in New Testament terms. The old testament, has similar problems. One of those, is that Hebrew was a language that had died out. The knowledge of Hebrew in the 1600s, was not as developed as it is today. In addition, the KJV only had the Masoretic text of the Old Testament to work from, which itself has some known problems, especially since we now have, yet again, much older Hebrew texts to go from, largely due to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, it needs to be re-emphasized, that here again, God's word has remained intact, there has been no scholarship, nor discoveries, which have forced the revision of any Christian doctrine, and so we see, His message is intact, just as He promised.

So, the modern King James reader, has to be content to read a revision of somewhat late manufacture, with inferior scholarship and textual basis, in a language not native to him/her. God bless them.  While the King James Bible has its flaws, like all Bibles, and is not the most accurate, it remains good for reproof, instruction, and is still powerful and able to lead one to the knowledge that leads to salvation.

Thank you Father, for your Word.

Omegaman   

Addendum - Nice short page on Bible Manscripts - http://www.westminster.edu/staff/brennie/mss.htm

You might also be interested in the following article on the history of the English Bible.