The Validity of the Received Text

by Debra E. Anderson Much is being said today in an attempt to denigrate the Textus Receptus, the Greek New Testament text upon which the English Authorised Version and other Reformation-era translations were based. Critics believe that there is no single text which can validly claim the title "Received Text", that the text originated in the works of a Roman Catholic priest, that it was produced using only a few manuscripts - these things would all exclude its use as a valid source of translation, and thus any translations based upon something called the Textus Receptus would themselves be invalid.

It must be acknowledged from the outset that these critics' initial claims are true. There is no single Received Text; Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest to the day of his death; Erasmus used a handful of manuscripts which were readily available to him. However, the matter is not as simple as these critics would have us believe.

First, what is the Textus Receptus? What has been called the Received Text since the middle 17th century is actually a group of printed texts produced beginning in 1516 with the first edition of the text of Erasmus. These texts, produced by Reformation and Renaissance scholars, bear their names: Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, Elzevir. The latest, and currently most used, edition of the Textus Receptus, is that produced by Scrivener in 1894, which is still published by the Society. These texts are based upon varying numbers of manuscripts which were available at the time, but all of these manuscripts have something in common: they were all of the Byzantine text-type. Thus, these texts are nearly consistent, not only with one another, but also with the vast majority of manuscripts of the Greek New Testament which were available to scholars of the Reformation and which are available to scholars today.

Considering our current century, those who advocate the use of the Critical Greek Text also speak in terms of there being one single text. However, there have been twenty-seven editions of the Nestle text, and five (including the 3rd edition corrected) of the United Bible Societies' text. That does not include the texts of Tischendorf, Hort and Westcott in the 19th century. Each of these texts is also built on only a handful of manuscripts, a handful which do not represent the majority of available manuscripts but instead are the only representatives of a group of manuscripts which differ from the majority and amongst themselves. Therefore, regardless of which edition of the Textus Receptus one chooses, he is getting a New Testament which represents the majority of manuscripts available then and now. His Critical Greek Text does not.

Second, the characters of Erasmus and some of the other men who worked on editions of the Textus Receptus are derided, and this may not be without good reason. Erasmus was indeed a Roman Catholic, as well as being a humanist scholar who urged the young prince of his country to follow the teachings of Plato and Augustine. Others may well have had money as the primary goal of their work on the text. However, one thing must be borne in mind regarding the time during which these men worked on their editions of the Textus Receptus. Along with the craving for knowledge which brought about the production of the Textus Receptus in the first place came a resurgence in the desire to know the God presented in that New Testament. Men sought answers in science, but that science was based upon the Scriptures - Scriptures which men upheld as containing and teaching only truth.

This cannot be said of the period which saw the presumed abandonment of the Textus Receptus and the production of the Critical Greek Text. The 19th century was a time of scientific discovery, but the theories which derived from those discoveries were the result of the abandonment of belief in the truth of the Scriptures. In the minds of many, Darwin replaced God as the revealer of creative history. Study of the Scriptures could validly be divorced from a belief in the God of those Scriptures. Even some Christian scholars turned over the text of their Bible to men who believed it to be nothing more than another ancient book. Man became the source of knowledge and truth.

Third, critics complain that Erasmus used only a handful of manuscripts which were readily available. This is true - at least for his first edition. Erasmus may well have been in a hurry to produce a Greek text to accompany his Latin, and may have been conscious of -- and trying to beat -- the imminent publication of the Complutensian Polyglot.

It should be noted in this regard that the manuscripts in Erasmus' handful were a valid representation of the majority of manuscripts available at the time. In addition, while he may have hurried in his first edition, this was not true of subsequent editions of his text, in which more manuscripts and much more care were used. Other scholars carrying on Erasmus' work also were able to access and spend the necessary time examining more and more manuscripts. In 1707 Mill published a New Testament, using the Textus Receptus as his basis and printing in the margin variants culled from research on hundreds of manuscripts. No doubt they spent as much time and energy as current scholars can claim to spend, and did not have many of the distractions which are common in today's fast-paced, politically correct world.

A question which must be asked of these critics is why they complain that Erasmus used only a handful of manuscripts but applaud the use by current scholars of only three or four manuscripts which, owing primarily to age, are considered to be of more value than the vast majority of manuscripts found throughout the Church of the type used by Erasmus and his scholarly descendants.

God in His mercy and grace has always seen to it that no doctrine is excluded from His Word; critics make an issue of this in attempting to support the Critical Greek Text. And it is true that every doctrine, even those found most strongly in passages omitted by the current Critical Greek Text, is found somewhere else in Scripture. But these other occasions are often truncated and do not express as succinctly the doctrine as does the omitted passage. Where else in Scripture is the Trinity so clearly delineated as in 1 John 5.7-8? And where else in Scripture do we see so simply the tenderness of our Saviour toward sinners as in John 7.53-8.11?

Perhaps using the Critical Greek Text makes scholars feel better, seeing that it is more in accordance with the scientific values of our modern age. But is it more glorifying to God? Argue as we might, that is the most important aspect of any Biblical study.

Yes there have been fragments found. I can't remember nor I can I direct you at this moment to the source, but I spent a lot of time looking up information about the earliest known copies of Biblical texts. There are many fragments that pre-date Christ that match the later complete copies of the OT. There are no complete copies that I know of that pre-date Christ, which is not surprising given the nature of what they were written on. The LXX is also widely quoted in the NT. What is intriguing to me is that the various authors of the NT did not share our concerns with quotation and seemed to move back and forth from the Masoretic to the LXX and vice versa as some wording seemed to work in their pending argument.

There are are only a few fragments of any writing of the Greek OT that in the BC era.

All of these are from the Torah.

We have no proof that a BC Septuagint even existed.

The Septuagint that we use today is from Origens fifth column of his Hexepla.

As for quotations from the Septugaint by the NT authors,there aren't any!

One, when you check the actual quotes listed you will find the Hebrew lines up with the quote also.

Two, where there are differences, it was the Septuagint that matched the NT not the other way around.

Origen had a copy of the NT in front of him when he was constructing his Septuagint.

I haven't really thought through how that fact might affect ftD's KJV-only arguments, but it seems significant that God didn't seem overly concerned about a single 'correct' translation since these two translations (Masoretic and LXX) don't always agree. I would be interested in ftD's thoughts on that -- and yours as well.

The Masoretic text is where God preserved His Old Testament words.

ftD and I both hold to the notion that God's Word will be preserved for all time, we just disagree on how that is fulfilled. ftD supports the KJV as the infallible and divinely inspired reproduction of God's words. I don't agree because I don't think that it necessarily has to be reproduced all accurately in the same place. I would not go as far as saying that it's only the message that counts and not the words, but that reasonable scholarship will preserve the message. Having been a student of foreign language at one time, I know that no translation is completely accurate because each language has its own subtleties and words that simply have no counterpart in another language. We have to accept on faith that God keeps His promise to preserve His word. ftD maintains that that promise is kept in the KJV. I don't agree. Regardless of our differences of opinion, we both agree on the fundamental truths of the Gospel, we both love Christ, and we both seek to do His will in our lives. Amen!
Below are a list of Bibles based on the TR,
Textus Receptus/Masoretic Text-based foreign language Bibles
The following is a partial list of translations that read LIKE the Authorised Version in Mark 1:2. I've learned that this does not mean that they are perfect Bibles for these languages. Do research and use discernment.
The following texts with the asterick (*) read like Mark 1:2 in the Authorized Version. "As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." (Mark 1:2) Please note that Mark 1:2 does not contain the word Isaiah.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Albanian (1827), [?] [The Gospel of John and Book of Romans are now in Print in this language. The new translation is from the T/R- note added by Wm. Byers] ARABIC (VAN DIJK) BIBLE--TBS [?] Armenian (1666), [?] Bulgarian (1864), [?] CATALAN of Spain THE GOSPEL OF JOHN--TBS [?] CHAD ARABIC of Chad THE GOSPEL OF LUKE (Arabic Script)--TBS [?] CZECH (KRALICE) BIBLE--TBS [?] Danish Christian III (1550), [?] Dutch Statenvertaling (1637), [?] DUTCH (STATENVERTALING) BIBLE--TBS [?] [*] English Authorised Version Bible Estonian (1739), [?]
Finnish (1642), [?] I have practically no information on Finnish Bibles, but a reader said this-- English has developed much longer than Finnish, and so written English was almost ready and very understandable even 500 years ago, but there is not a single Finn who could read Michael Agricola's translations of Luther's texts without considering the meaning of every word and possibly consulting studybooks very often. It's almost like an Englishman would try to read a Gaelic Bible. We have a somehow readable Bible from the end of 19th century called Piplia, but I'm not sure about it's origin and understanding it is still not too easy for a Finn of this day. So, a Bible older than that is most propably useless. Someone ought to make a new translation, someone who doesn't honor the miserable "Bible science" that got us into this. There are two one man's Bibles in Finland (Saarnivaara and one other), but as far as I know, they offer no hope. There's a Bible school in Ryttylä, 80mi away from here considered fundamentalist, but even they are happy wih Saarnivaara's Bible.
French: Two of our readers sent us this important information: Reader #1
"Presently for the French speaking people, there is two Bibles base on the TR that is available. Both have the rendering of KJV for Mark 1:2"
Martin (1855) produced by Association Biblique International, Box 225646, Dallas, Texas. 75222. USA This Bible is the Official version of David Martin which he produce in 1707. He use a Geneva Bible (1588) of Theodore de Beze which was a revision of the 1535 Olivetan Bible. And for the Greek text he use the TR.
The other Bible available to us is Version d'Ostervald Revise par Ch. L. Frossard; printed by Bearing Precious Seed, Milford, Ohio 45150 "This is a revised edition of the 1881 version of Frossard. Frossard revised Ostervald version which Ostervald produce in 1744. Ostervald use the TR and a David Martin Bible to produce his version.
"I have research and studied the history of the Bible in French for the past year and presently working on a book that will expose the work of darkness concerning the French version of the bibles."
Our reader said this about the revised Louis Segond which we had listed on this page:
"You listed the French (SEGOND-REVISED) Bible from TBS. Even though Mark 1:2 read like the KJV it is not base on the Textus Receptus, but rather is was corrected by TBS with the Textus Receptus. TBS trying to produce a French version of the Bible that would resemble the KJV simply corrected some passage in the Segond Bible the would have the same rendering of the KJV. Though they try very hard, it still fall short of a Textus Receptus base Bible." Our reader said this about the French Geneva (1588):

"For the French Geneva (1588) it does have the same rendering of the KJV for Mark 1:2. I have access to that Bible, and did a small collation with the KJV."

As you can see there is a great need to get Bibles translated into other languages.

One needs a standard to go by and that standard is the KJB which does have the correct readings.

As you can see there is a great need to get Bibles translated into other languages. One needs a standard to go by and that standard is the KJB which does have the correct readings. How do you believe the translation work should be done? Using French as an example, should it be KJV(English)-to-French or TR(Koine)-to-French? If the latter, doesn't that bypass the 'preserved-text'? If the former, doesn't that mean that the logical translation of, say, the Geneva Bible is overcome by the occurrence of the KJV translation in 1611?

If the last option is used, (the TR) that is fine, as long as the KJ readings were used as the final standard.

There may be a few differences between the various TR texts, but they would not represent any major differences in readings.

What you do not want is a TR translation such as the 'New' King James that smuggles in Alexandrian readings, while purporting to be a TR Bible.

In the second option, the differences between the Geneva and King James are quite negiliable, since both Bibles are 90% Tyndale.

As Holland as said, Anyone reading the lessons so far must admit that evidence has been provided of the preservation of God's words long before 1611. If not, I would suggest that the student reread lesson five. And, if one insists that being a KJV only advocate limits the Bible only to English-speaking people, I would again suggest that the student reread the same lesson. The simple fact is that the preserved word of God was here before 1611 and in other languages besides English. Any statement otherwise is a perversion of the facts given and a misrepresentation of those who support and believe the KJV.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.