Was the Textus Receptus Based on Just a Few Manuscripts?

Instead of only two Greek texts [Textus Receptus and the Critical Text], there are at least three Greek texts: the Byzantine or Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, and the Critical Text.

In their second edition’s preface, Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont wrote: “Some early printed editions (usually Textus Receptus) and English translations include words or phrases that are not part of the Byzantine Textform” (The New Testament, p. xx). W. Edward Glenny noted: “The TR has several Greek readings which did not exist before 1516 when Erasmus put them in the Bible, and it also differs from the Majority Text over 1800 times" (Bible Version Debate, p. 51).

Charles Lantz asserted: “Erasmus created a number of Greek readings that had never been seen in any manuscript before” (Just One Bible, p. 274). In the fourth edition of his book edited by Edward Miller, Scrivener pointed out that some portions of Erasmus's "self-made version" that are found "in no one known Greek manuscript whatever still cleave to our received text" (Plain Introduction, II, p. 184). In his book about the KJV, F. H. A. Scrivener included a partial list of "places in which the translators of 1611 have apparently followed the Latin Vulgate, mostly after the example of Tyndale, sometimes of Versions later than his, especially of the Rhemish of 1582, whereof the Epistle of the Translators to the Reader speaks so contemptuously" (Authorized Edition, p. 262).

Jan Krans acknowledged: “As is well known, some verses and words in the Greek part of Erasmus’ editions were not derived from Greek manuscripts, but were based on the Vulgate text” (Beyond What is Written, p. 53). Jan Krans asserted: “In Erasmus’ Greek text, a number of readings are adopted that cannot be found in any Greek manuscripts, or at least not in those which Erasmus had at his disposal” (p. 62). Jan Krans maintained that “Erasmus’ text appears as an unsteady bridge between the Byzantine and the Vulgate text, but a bridge nevertheless” (p. 108). Donald Brake noted that “several of his [Erasmus’s] renderings do not appear in any known Greek manuscript” (Visual History of the English Bible, p. 93).

It has not been demonstrated that Erasmus, Stephanus, or Beza collated completely and accurately anything approaching a true majority of 5,000 Greek NT manuscripts as KJV-only advocates try to imply. It also has not been proven that they applied any sound textual measures consistently and justly in agreement with scriptural truths.

The available evidence indicates that the textual editing or textual criticism decisions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were based on an imperfect, incomplete collation of likely less than fifty Greek NT manuscripts and no more than one hundred Greek NT manuscripts.

John Scott Porter claimed: “The MSS they possessed were few; add together the five of Erasmus, the fifteen of Stephens, the two possessed by Beza, and allow ten for the Complutensian, there were only thirty-two in all” (Principles of Textual Criticism, p. 253). If Erasmus checked a few selective readings in a few other unidentified Greek manuscripts, would that cursory sampling or partial collation be enough to constitute a complete, careful examination and collation of their entire text?

 

Except in likely over 1,000 places where the varying printed Textus Receptus editions do not follow the reading in the majority of Greek NT manuscripts that have been collated thus far.

W. Edward Glenny noted: “The TR has several Greek readings which did not exist before 1516 when Erasmus put them in the Bible, and it also differs from the Majority Text over 1800 times" (Bible Version Debate, p. 51). Charles Lantz asserted: “Erasmus created a number of Greek readings that had never been seen in any manuscript before” (Just One Bible, p. 274). In the fourth edition of his book edited by Edward Miller, Scrivener pointed out that some portions of Erasmus's "self-made version" that are found "in no one known Greek manuscript whatever still cleave to our received text" (Plain Introduction, II, p. 184).

 

Samuel Tregelles wrote: "Robert Stephens, ten years before, in editing the Latin Vulgate, had made pretty extensive use of MSS.; and in giving the work of Greek collation into the hands of his son Henry, then aged only eighteen, he might have had some thoughts of similarly applying criticism to the Greek text" (Account, p. 31). Scrivener asserted that “Robert Stephen professed to have collated the whole sixteen for his two previous editions,” but that “this part of his work is now known to be due to his son Henry [1528-1598], who in 1546 was only eighteen years old” (Introduction, II, p. 190). Edward Miller affirmed: “Robert Stephen did not collate his authorities himself, but employed the services of his son Henry” (Guide to the Textual Criticism, p. 10). J. Scott Porter also maintained that “the MSS. were collated, and their readings noted, by Henry Stephens, son of Robert, then a youth of eighteen” (Principles, p. 250). Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible contended that “the collations were made by his son Henry Stephens” (III, p. 2131). Irena Backus asserted that Robert Stephanus “used Henri’s collations as the sole source of Greek variants for his 1550 edition of the New Testament” (Reformed Roots, p. 3). John Michaelis as translated by Herbert Marsh pointed out that Robert Stephens “made use of several manuscripts which were collated by his son Henry” (Introduction to N. T., II, p. 448). Henry Baird quoted Theodore Beza as writing in a preface to his NT about a copy of “our Stephens which had been most carefully collated by his son, Henry Stephens” (Theodore Beza, p. 236). KJV-only author Laurence Vance acknowledged that the text of Stephanus included the “collations of his son Henry” (Brief History, p. 13). Jan Krans pointed out that “in a 1565 addition to the preface, Beza informs us that the collations were actually Henri Stephanus’, who was probably asked to do them by his father” (Beyond What is Written, p. 212). Krans also referred to another source revealing that the collations were done by the son of Robert Stephanus, which is “Henri Stephanus’ own words in the preface to his 1587 New Testament” (p. 212, footnote 6).


Has anyone ever checked and confirmed the accuracy of these manuscript collations that underlie varying Textus Receptus editions?

Scrivener suggested that “the degree of accuracy attained in this collation may be estimated from the single instance of the Complutensian, a book printed in very clear type” (Plain Introduction, II, p. 190). Scrivener then indicated that “forty-eight, or one in twelve [of Stephen’s citations of the Complutensian] are false” (p. 190, footnote 1). Samuel Tregelles maintained that “it may be said, that as the Complutensian text is often incorrectly cited in Stephen’s margin, we may conclude that the same thing is true of the MSS which were collated; for it would be remarkable if manuscripts were examined with greater accuracy than a printed book” (Account, p. 31). Smith’s Dictionary maintained that “while only 598 variants of the Complutensian are given, Mill calculates that 700 are omitted” (III, p. 2131). Marvin Vincent asserted: “Of the Complutensian readings many more were omitted than inserted, and the Complutensian text is often cited incorrectly” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 57). In a note, John Eadie commented: “The margin of the New Testament of Robert Stephens, 1550, is not of great value. He did not print all the various readings which his son Henry had gathered, nor did he fully collate all the sixteen MSS” (English Bible, II, p. 214). Samuel Newth maintained that the manuscripts used by Stephanus were “imperfectly collated” (Lectures, p. 86). Frederic Gardiner claimed that the collation in this edition “is neither complete nor accurate” (Principles, p. 5). Marvin Vincent suggested that “the collation, both of the Complutensian and of the manuscripts was partial and slovenly” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 57). Marvin Vincent wrote: “The body of manuscript evidence amassed by the Stephens were imperfectly collated in the edition of 1550. Though the authorities stand in the margin, the text is perpetually at variance with the majority of them, and in 119 places, with all of them. No fixed principles regulated the occasional applications of the manuscript readings to the construction of the text” (pp. 63-64). Richard Porson (1759-1808) asserted that “Stephen’s margin is full of mistakes in the readings and numbers of the MSS” (Gentlemen’s Magazine, May, 1789, p. 386; Letters, p. 55). Richard Porson maintained that Stephens “has favored us with only a part of the various readings, (probably less than half) and has frequently set down a reading as from one manuscript which belonged to another” (Letters, pp. 88-89). Charles Hudson reported that the “various readings collated by his son” . . . “are known to be given very inaccurately” (Greek and English Concordance, p. xiv).

Is the textual apparatus in the 1550 Stephanus TR edition honeycombed with errors? Do KJV-only advocates and TR-only advocates deal adequately with these pertinent facts that the collating of the few Greek NT manuscripts that are the basis for the TR editions was incomplete, imperfect, or slipshod, which could suggest the possibility that some of the TR textual criticism decisions may not have been soundly made?

 

Jan Krans contended that Theodore Beza “takes the text as found in Stephanus’ editions for granted and does not see himself as the editor of the Greek text” (Beyond What is Written, p. 218). Henry Baird pointed out that Beza was "chiefly indebted" to the previous 1550 edition of Stephanus that was based on one of the later editions of Erasmus (Theodore Beza, p. 235). Floyd Jones observed: “In 1598 Beza published his fifth edition, again using Erasmus’ Greek text as his foundation” and that “it reads almost the same as the last update of Erasmus” (Which Version, p. 44).

Irena Backus asserted: "Beza's 1582 version differed from Stephanus in about 40 places" (Reformed Roots of the English N. T., p. 2). Backus produced evidence that "suggests that Beza was largely dependent on the collations of the two Stephani for his MS variants" (p. 6). Backus pointed out that Beza says that he had an ‘exemplar’ [book of collations] from Robert Stephanus that had been collated by his son Henri and that “Beza says that this ‘exemplar’ provided the sole source for his minuscule MS variants” (pp. 2-3). Backus noted that Beza in his preface to the 1598 edition of his Greek text “referred to nineteen” manuscripts (p. 3). Jan Krans pointed out that the nineteen “can be seen as Stephanus’ seventeen coupled with Codex Bezae and Codex Claromontamus” (Beyond What Is Written, p. 216).

Does that mean that Beza’s text is derived from this imperfect source which cited a clear minority of MS evidence so that it is not a majority text?

Jan Krans noted that “in most cases the information provided by Beza agrees exactly with Stephanus’ critical apparatus” (Beyond What Is Written, p. 211), and in his footnote [3] Krans asserted that Beza “even faithfully reproduces Stephanus’ errors.” Krans wrote: “Beza often refers to readings derived from Stephanus in ways that suggest that he actually consulted the manuscripts himself. However, this impression is deceptive, at least in case of Stephanus’ manuscripts” (p. 213). Krans observed: “It may be safely concluded that most of Beza’s text-critical information was second-hand, that is, derived from Henri Stephanus’ collations and Robert or Henri Stephanus’ editions” (pp. 242-243). In notes under correspondence from Francis Huyshe in the March, 1834, issue of The British Magazine, this is stated concerning Revelation 16:5: “But having discovered in the book of collations, the reading, …, (which is ever used on similar occasions), as he [Beza] says, ‘ex vetusto bonae fidei MS. Cod.,’ he restores it” (Vol. V, p. 287). Did Beza merely assume that the new reading he introduced at Revelation 16:5 was found in an old manuscript because it was in an imperfect, recent book of collations where a young collator could have looked at the wrong place in a manuscript that did not have verse divisions? Do the known facts indicate that Henri Stephanus’ imperfect book of collations may possibly have misled Beza in some cases? Isn’t it amazing that the claimed reading of one missing or lost NT manuscript can be advocated over the reading of all known preserved Greek NT manuscripts?

 

Concerning manuscript 1’ [min. 2814], Robert Waltz wrote: “Noteworthy primarily as the single Greek manuscript used by Erasmus to prepare the Apocalypse of his 1516 New Testament” (Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism, p. 1037). Isbon Beckwith wrote: “Cursive no. 1, of the 12th or 13th century containing the Apocalypse, with the commentary of Andreas, is of particular interest, since it was the only Greek Ms. which Erasmus had for the Apocalypse in his first edition of the Greek Testament (1516)“ (Apocalypse of John, p. 412). John David Michaelis as translated by Herbert Marsh noted: “Erasmus relates in his defence adversus Stunicam, that he used only one single manuscript of the Revelation for his edition of the New Testament” (Introduction to the NT, Vol. II, p. 312). Thomas Holland wrote: “The manuscript Codex 1r used by Desiderius Erasmus in the production of his Greek New Testament is missing the last six verses of Revelation chapter twenty-two” (Crowned With Glory, p. 168). James Edward Snapp wrote: “Erasmus, in order to finish the first edition of his compilation, used Valla’s notes and a Latin Vulgate text to reconstruct the Greek text of verses 16-21” (NT Textual Analysis, p. 140). Jan Krans maintained that this manuscript had some other omissions in its text, noting: “Some striking examples, by no means exhaustive, of omissions in min. 2814 that are restored by Erasmus” on the basis of the Latin Vulgate include phrases or clauses at Revelation 2:2, 2:17, 2:20, 3:12, 6:11, 22:11 (Beyond What is Written, p. 54, footnote 7). This manuscript includes the commentary of Andreas of Caesarea in Cappadocia. The Greek text of this manuscript is sometimes described as the “Andreas text” because the manuscripts with Andreas’s commentary have some readings said to characterize or distinguish them from typical Byzantine Greek manuscripts. In a new translation and his commentary on the book of Revelation, Craig Koester distinguished between the text used in the commentary by Andreas and the Byzantine text (p. 149). Josef Schmid classified the Andreas text as one of the four main text types or families of text for the Apocalypse. Edward Hutton identified or associated “the Andreas text with the great Western family” (Atlas of Textual Criticism, p. 47).

At times in this worn manuscript of the book of Revelation used by Erasmus and his copyist, it has been said that it was difficult to distinguish the commentary from the text. Henry Alford observed: “The text in the MS. is mixed up with the commentary of Andreas” (Greek Testament, Vol. 4, p. 263, footnote 8). In this manuscript, Thomas J. Conant noted: “The text and commentary alternate, without any break in the line” (Baptist Quarterly, April, 1870, p. 135). James R. White suggested that Erasmus “had an unknown copyist make a fresh copy and returned the original to Reuchlin” (King James Only, second edition, p. 91). Although some errors made by that copyist in his copying may have been corrected in later printed editions of the TR, W. Edward Glenny maintained that “the copyist made several errors that are still found in the TR text published today” (Beacham, One Bible Only, p. 82).

In an edition of the KJV with commentary as edited by F. C. Cook and printed in 1881, William Lee in his introduction to the book of Revelation asserted “the sacred text is here mixed up with the commentary of Andreas,” and he noted: “Owing to this cause, Erasmus omitted, from his first three editions, chapter 21:26” (Vol. IV, p. 462). At Revelation 21:24, William Lee claimed that “the copyist has imported into the text the words of the commentary, viz. ’of them which are saved’” (Ibid.). Thomas Conant maintained that the words “of them which are saved” (Rev. 21:24) “rests solely on a mistake by the transcriber, who confounded the commentary of Andreas with the words of the sacred writer” (Baptist Quarterly, Vol. IV, April, 1870, p. 136). Thomas Conant suggested that “the transcriber accidentally misplaced the signs for the commencement of the text and of the commentary (as other copies of the commentary show), and thus included in the text the words, ‘of them that are saved,‘ which belong to the commentary on the preceding verse” (pp. 135-136). In the book of Revelation, Robert Waltz asserted that the Textus Receptus has “a handful” of readings “derived from the [Andreas] commentary itself” (Encyclopedia, p. 438). In his commentary on the book of Numbers, Rod Mattoon asserted: “Some of the commentary [by Andreas] found its way into Erasmus’ text and into the KJV” (Treasures from Numbers, p. 525).

John Nordstrom maintained that Erasmus acknowledged in his annotations that he had translated the last six verses of Revelation 22 from the Latin Vulgate, but that the printer did not choose to print that note in the printed edition. John Nordstrom asserted: “This omission can be verified by placing side-by-side Erasmus’ hand-copied notes with the actual printed copy” (Strained by Blood, p. 74). Jan Krans claimed that Erasmus wrote in his annotation on Revelation 22:20 the following as translated into English: “However, at the end of this book, I found some words in our versions which were lacking in the Greek copies, but we added them from the Latin” (Beyond What is Written, p. 55-56, footnote 11). Jan Krans noted that Erasmus later “ordered the proofreaders of his second edition to supply the final words of Revelation from the Aldine edition of the Greek Bible” (p. 57). Krans suggested that “it seems Erasmus never realized that the text of the New Testament in the Aldine edition is derived from his own first edition” (p. 57, footnote 16). Samuel Tregelles asserted: “Erasmus has often been blamed for using the Aldine reprint of his own first edition as if it were a distinct authority. But it appears from Erasmus’s own words, that he was not aware that such was the case” (Account of the Printed Text, p. 27).

 

Are you demonstrating that the truth is not important to you? Your rejection of the truth is noted.

 

Your assertion is bogus and wrong. I am not suggesting any opposition to God and His Word and the Cause of Christ.

You disobey a clear command of God by bearing false witness. Your statement was weighed in the balances and left wanting.

 

Nope. His statement was spot on. The prophesied "Falling Away" Era has produced "Falling Away" Bibles.

 

You do not demonstrate your opinion to be true.

Perhaps you believe the unproven accusations in some KJV-only writings. Perhaps your opinion is based on use of the post hoc fallacy as you attempt to blame the word of God translated into present-day English for things that you do not prove to be its result.

This informal fallacy claims that what is first in time is necessarily the cause of what follows. This fallacy of false cause depends on some imagined causal connection that does not exist or has not been proven to exist.

It is always possible to find some small resemblance or seeming connection between any two things, but this does not prove one caused the other. Henry Virkler observed: “Correlation does not prove causation” (Christian’s Guide, p. 144). The same consequences may have come about in some other way.

Many things happen after other events (even regularly) without being caused by them.

 

Baptist historian Thomas Armitage wrote that “he [Peter Waldo] employed Stephen of Ansa and Bernard Ydross to translate the Gospels from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome into the Romance dialect for the common people, as well as the most inspiring passages from the Christian Fathers” (History of the Baptists, I, p. 295).

Andrea Ferrari wrote that “Waldo of Lyons paid some clergy to translate parts of the Bible from the Vulgate” (Diodati’s Doctrine, pp. 71-72). Paul Tice confirmed that Waldo “enlisted two clerics to translate various parts of the Bible, including the four Gospels, into the native Provencal language” (History of the Waldenses, p. vi). H. J. Warner maintained that the base for this translation was “for the most part the Vulgate of Jerome” (Albigensian, II, p. 222). Warner noted that Stephen de Ansa, a [Roman Catholic] priest, translated some books of the Bible into the Romance tongue while another priest Bernard Udros wrote his translating down for Peter Waldo (p. 221). Glenn Conjurske affirmed that “the medieval Waldensian version in the old Romance language [was] translated from the Vulgate” (Olde Paths, July, 1997, p. 160). KJV-only author Ken Johnson wrote that “we openly grant this” [“the fact Waldo used the Vulgate as the basis of his translation”] (Real Truth, p. 21).

Deanesly wrote that “the earliest existent Waldensian texts, Provencal, Catalan and Italian, were founded on a Latin Bible, the use of which prevailed widely in the Visigothic kingdom of Narbonne, up to the thirteenth century” and that this Latin Bible “is characterized by a set of peculiar readings, amounting to over thirty, in the Acts of the Apostles” and these same readings appear in “the early Provencal, Catalan and Italian Bible” and “in the Tepl manuscript” (Lollard Bible, pp. 65-66). Deanesly referred to this Latin Bible as “the Visigothic Vulgate” and indicated that it was later superseded by the Paris Vulgate (p. 66). James Roper maintained that the two Provencal versions “are derived from the Latin text of Languadoc of the thirteenth century, and hence in Acts contain many ‘Western’ readings of old Latin origin” (Jackson, Beginnings, III, p. cxxxviii). Roper added: “The translators of these texts merely used the text of Languadoc current in their own day and locality, which happened (through contiguity to Spain) to be widely mixed with Old Latin readings” (p. cxxxviii). Referring to Codex Teplensis and the Freiberg manuscript, Roper wrote: “The peculiar readings of all these texts in Acts, often ‘Western’ go back (partly at least through a Provencal version) to the mixed Vulgate text of Languadoc of the thirteenth century, which is adequately known from Latin MSS” (pp. cxxxix-cxl). Roper asserted: “A translation of the New Testament into Italian was made, probably in the thirteenth century, from a Latin text like that of Languadoc, and under the influence of the Provencal New Testament. It includes, like those texts, some ’Western’ readings in Acts” (p. cxlii). Since Languadoc or Languedoc was the name of a region of southern France, especially the area between the Pyrenees and Loire River, and since Narbonne was a city in southern France in the same region and it was also the name of a province or kingdom in this area, both authors seem to have been referring to the same basic region. For a period of time, this area was not part of the country of France. The Catalan, Provencal, and Piedmontese dialects are considered to be dialects of the Romaunt language, the vernacular language of the South of Europe before the French, Spanish, and Italian languages were completely formed. The above evidence indicates that the mentioned Waldensian translations were made from an edition of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate that was mixed with some Old Latin readings, especially in the book of Acts. William Gilly had the Romanunt Version of the Gospel of John printed in 1848. L. Cledat had the N. T. as translated into Provencal printed in 1887 (Warner, p. 68).

Glenn Conjurske cited Herman Haupt as maintaining that “the old Romance, or Provencal, Waldensian version invariably reads Filh de la vergena (‘Son of the virgin’) instead of ‘Son of man’--except only in Hebrews 2:6, where (of course) it has filh de l’ome, ‘son of man’,” and Conjurske noted that he verified Haupt’s claim (Olde Paths, June, 1996, p. 137). H. J. Warner observed that “in St. John 1, the Romance version had ‘The Son was in the beginning,‘ and in verse 51 ‘The Son of the Virgin’ for ‘the Son of Man,‘ and so throughout all the Dublin, Zurich, Grenoble and Paris MSS. in every corresponding place” (Albigensian, II, pp. 223-224). William Gilly maintained that “wherever the words, Filius Hominis (Son of Man), occur in the Vulgate, they are translated Filh de la Vergena (Son of the Virgin), throughout the whole of this Version of the New Testament” (Romanunt Version, p. xliii).

James Todd described a Waldensian manuscript preserved at Dublin that has the New Testament with the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Cantica, Wisdom, and Ecclelsiasticus in the Romance dialect (Books of the Vaudois, p. 1). Todd noted that its Gospel of Matthew includes “the prologue of St. Jerome.” Todd observed: “No intimation of the apocryphal or uncanonical character of the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus occurs in the MS” (Ibid.). In an appendix of Todd’s book, Henry Bradshaw described some Waldensian manuscripts preserved at Cambridge, noting that Morland Manuscript A includes “a translation of Genesis 1-10 from the Vulgate” (p. 216). Bradshaw noted that Morland Manuscript C included a translation of Job chapters 1-3 and 42 from the Vulgate and “a translation of the whole book of Tobit from the Vulgate” (pp. 215-216).