19th-century Textus Receptus?

The following information pertains to the Textus Receptus (TR) as published by the Trinitarian Bible Society. According to one of the TBS editors with whom I correspond, their publication of the TR is the best selling version today, and has been for quite some time. The Greek text was compiled by the great English scholar, F. H. A. Scrivener. [footnote 1]

Scrivener’s task was to catalogue differences between the Greek text presumed to underlie the KJV New Testament, and the Greek text underlying the (then new) 1881 English Revised Version New Testament. (The ERV Old Testament was published in 1885). [2]

However, while a single Greek text was used for the translation of the English Revised Version , [3] the KJV translators relied on a broad variety of resources, including Tyndale, the Latin Vulgate, the Geneva translation, the Bishops’ Bible, the Complutensian Polyglot, Matthew’s Bible, Coverdale, Whitchurch, various commentaries, translations into Syrian, Spanish, French, Italian and Dutch, and other materials available at that time. [4] Although many people seem to think that the KJV translators simply sat at a table or desk with a copy of the so-called Textus Receptus in one hand and pen and paper in the other, translating from that one Greek source, this is far from the truth.

To the extent they used Greek, the KJV translators largely referred to a few volumes from that long list of textual descendants stretching back to the very first published Greek New Testament compiled by Desiderius Erasmus in 1515 and released to the public in 1516. [5] From that list, the KJV translators drew mostly from the Theodore Beza publications of 1588 and 1589 and especially 1598. These, in addition to the many other variations of the Erasmus text published throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, are collectively thought of today as the Textus Receptus (TR). [6]

All of this being the case, before Scrivener could compare the Greek text underlying the English Revised Version with the text presumed to stand behind the KJV, he had to construct a single Greek text that matched the KJV.

Scrivener used the 1598 Beza publication as a base, since, according to him (Scrivener), that version “is found on comparison to agree more closely with the Authorized Version [KJV] than any other Greek text…“ [7] He simply went verse by verse, comparing the KJV with the Beza text. When he came to a word or passage in the KJV that did not agree with Beza, he went looking for the source the translators most likely used. There were about 190 such instances. When he found a likely exemplar, he replaced the Beza reading with the reading found in that source, so that the result would match the KJV.

Often, however, he could not discover Greek sources that accurately reflected the KJV, but found them instead in the Vulgate, Tyndale, or elsewhere. In those situations, he stayed with the Beza, even if it did not exactly “mesh” with the KJV. He writes: “There are many places in which the Authorized Version is at variance with Beza’s text; chiefly because it retains language inherited from Tyndale or his successors, which had been founded on the text of other Greek Editions.” (Tyndale’s translation was based on the second and third Erasmus editions.) Scrivener also writes: “It was manifestly necessary to accept only Greek authority [because of the nature of his task], though in some places the Authorized Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate.”

This means that there are various places in Scrivener’s GNT that do not correspond exactly with the KJV, and that this has carried over into the TR as it is published today. I have not actually checked this out, although I am aware of two instances where the KJV and the TR do not correspond: Acts 19:20 and Heb. 10:23. The Acts reference has “o logoV tou kuriou..” (“the word of the Lord”) in the TR, whereas the KJV has“.. the word of God.” The Hebrews reference reads, “..thV elpidoV..” (“… of the hope”) in the TR, where the AV reads, “.. of our faith..”

Thus, the Scrivener GNT was constructed to match the KJV, many passages of which were never actually used as sources by the KJV translators. The KJV is, instead, a compilation of readings drawn from a variety of materials that were available at that time, many of which are not Greek. In other words, the KJV translators never saw an entire GNT that corresponds exactly to what is most often sold as the Textus Receptus today (the Scrivener text). [8]

As footnoted, the above information and quotations are drawn mostly from Scrivener’s Annotated Greek New Testament, which includes his preface and appendix. The appendix lists the 190 (or so) places where the 1598 Beza does not correspond to the KJV, and cites the text and sources he drew from to replace the Beza in those instances. Fifty or sixty textual sources from the Vulgate are also listed.

[1] His full name is Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener.

[2] Scrivener was one of the translators of the ERV New Testament.

[3] The Greek text used for the ERV was prepared by Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), two highly-regarded biblical language scholars from England, but despised by King James Only people because they departed from the venerated Textus Receptus.

[4] Out of this list, the Bishops’ Bible, Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Whitchurch, and the Geneva Bible were part of the specific guidelines given to the KJV translators. They went beyond this, of course, to include many other sources.

[5] There were about 25 versions of the Erasmus text (500 printings, I have read) produced by several different publishers over many decades, and no two versions are identical. With various changes, the Erasmus GNT was published by Froben in 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535 (the texts Erasmus himself prepared). There was a version by Aldus in 1518 and Colinaeus in 1534. Stephanus's publications were in 1546, 1549, 1550 and 1551, and the Antwerp Polyglot was issued in 1572. Then came Beza's in 1560, 1565, 1582, 1589 and 1598. Beza also published octavo editions in 1565, 1567, 1580, 1590 and 1604. The AV translators used a few of these (especially Beza's 1598 edition).

[6] Actually, the first GNT in which the term Textus Receptus was used was published by the Elzevir brothers in 1633, twenty-two years after the appearance of the KJV. The term appears as part of the introduction to the text. Scholars think of the complete list of Greek New Testaments emanating from Erasmus as the Textus Receptus. Laymen, however, usually only refer to either the 1550 Stephanus publication or the Scrivener text.

[7] All quotes are taken from Scrivener’s Annotated Greek New Testament, published by the Dean Burgon Society Press (see below for the address). Also see: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/tr-art.asp

[8] The 1550 Stephanus GNT is also a popular version of the TR.

________________________________________________

When I last checked, Scrivener’s Annotated Greek New Testament could be purchased for $40 (hardcover), including S&H, from the following source:

The Dean Burgon Society Press

Box 354

Collinswood, New Jersey 08108

Phone: 856-854-4452

Fax: 856-854-2464

Email: DBS@DeanBurgonSociety.org