Are there Differences Between the Received Text and the Westcott-Hort Greek Text?

[Alan Gross]

The O.P. is:

Are there Differences Between the Received Text
and the Westcott-Hort Greek Text?

If you can find anyone on the Internet that is interested
in any of this marvelous information you have posted at length
in posts #2, #4, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #14, #16, #18, & #19 on this thread,
I suggest you post it to them, there.

Nothing you are posting means one thing at all. Nothing matters one wit.

Nothing you have posted has any relevance to anything or anybody in the world
that I can imagine. I picked the stupidest ridiculous retarded ones,
but they are all stupid ridiculous, and retarded.

You don't have a nickel's worth of content you post in six months.

I didn't say, to just post them indiscriminately anywhere,
regardless of them having any relevance, find someone who cares
about the various different tangents that you have launched into here
and post them there, so that they are not just a worthless waste of time.

Your opinion is wrong. You try to dismiss and avoid the truth that conflicts with your human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions.

The consistent truth matters. Attempting to apply justly the scriptural truths that advocate the consistent, just application of measures/standards and that condemn the inconsistent, unjust use of divers measures [double standards] matters.

Like physical measurements, mental and spiritual judgments or measures also should be good, true, upright, and just or righteous (John 7:24, Lev. 19:35, Lev. 19:15, Ps. 19:9, Ps. 119:39, Zech. 7:9, Prov. 12:17, Ps. 119:66, 1 Thess. 5:21, Ps. 119:137, Prov. 31:9, Deut. 1:16, Phil. 4:8, Eph. 4:25, 2 Cor. 4:2).

Believers are instructed and commanded to think on things that are honest, just, and pure (Phil. 4:8) and to speak the truth (Eph. 4:25).

According to what the Scriptures state and teach, it would be clear that the holy, just God would oppose the wicked perverting or wresting of righteous judgment by use of unjust measures (Job 34:12, Job 8:3, Exodus 23:7, Exodus 23:2, Rev. 15:3).

Have you actually demonstrated that you choose the way of truth and the mind of Christ if you choose to use inconsistent, unjust measures or double standards (Ps, 119:30, Prov. 12:17, Prov. 16:11)? Would use of unjust measures be good works (2 Tim. 3:17)?

Every false or evil way including that of the making of inconsistent, unrighteous judgments or decrees and the use of unjust measures should be hated or abhorred by believers (Ps. 119:104, 128, Rom. 12:9, Ps. 97:10). Should not believers denounce the hidden things of dishonesty and unjustness (2 Cor. 4:2)? Would unrighteous judgments or use of unjust measures be things that exalt themselves against the knowledge, wisdom, and truth of God (2 Cor. 10:5)? How long will men judge unjustly (Psalm 82:2)? What fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness (2 Cor. 6:14)? What fellowship has truth with fallacies or false claims? Righteous judgments based on just measures and in line with the wisdom that is from God above would be without partiality and without hypocrisy (James 3:17, Deut. 1:16-17).

Showing partiality or respect of persons to one exclusive group of Bible translators would not be agreement with the wisdom from God above and with righteous judgment (James 3:17, James 2:9, Deut. 1:17, Job 13:10, 1 Tim. 5:21). The making of sound, true, righteous judgments would be properly considered a weightier matter (Matt. 23:23).

A failure to use consistent, “altogether just” measures, standards, criteria, or principles (Deut. 16:20, Prov. 16:11, Ezek. 45:10, Deut. 25:15, Ps. 19:9) in comparing or trying manuscript copies or translations of Scripture would condemn the inconsistent, unfair, uneven, and unjust judgments that would result.

According to scriptural truth, should anyone who would use unjust measures or would be unjust concerning textual differences that are considered least be trusted in greater textual differences (Luke 16:10)? In order to be faithful, true, and just in that which is least, one would need to use consistent, just measures/standards.

If you have something else that you believe you would like to talk about, unrelated to the O.P., just start a New Thread.

There isn't anything that you've said that means anything to anybody, at all.

WHY ARE YOU TALKING?

The O.P. is:

Are there Differences Between the Received Text
and the Westcott-Hort Greek Text?

 

[Conan]

 

[Alan Gross]

Why do all of your posts either try in vain to address KJVOnly Ruckmanites,
or foretell Anti-KJVOnly Ruckmanite arguments?

Why are those two things the only thing you post,
no matter what the topic of discussion is on the thread?

Is there something wrong?

Are you O.K.?

KJVOnly advocates say that there are no variations?, somewhere?
and yet you can find variations?, somewhere?

Good job, Logos1560. Really.

Strong work.

You make us proud of you.

But, Dear Lord God Almighty, what is your problem?

Would Bradley, Riplinger, and other KJV-only advocates

Have you ever thought about trying to find someone who cares?

Google it.

Or, I know what you could do. Get on your knees and Tell God on Them.

The 1539 edition of the Great Bible has several differences with a 1540 edition of the Great Bible or with its 1541 edition.

Sometimes the next Bible in the claimed line of good Bibles made some changes by adding words likely from the Latin Vulgate as in the case of the Great Bible.

The 1540 edition of the Great Bible has some other additions in the Old Testament not found in the KJV.

Thus, the Great Bible, the first authorized Bible in English, would likely have hundreds of more words than the 1611 KJV, the third authorized version of the Church of England.

Glenn Conjurske pointed out: “One evident blemish of the Bishops’ Bible lies in its frequent flat and unnecessary additions in brackets [or italics]” (Olde Paths, March, 1996, p. 57).

Blackford Condit maintained that “the text of the Bishops’ Bible is weakened still more by the introduction of explanatory words and phrases; a seeming attempt to expound as well as translate the original text” (History, p. 286).

Concerning the Bishops‘ Bible, Scrivener asserted that “it is one of the most considerable faults of this not very successful version, that its authors assumed a liberty of running into paraphrase” (Authorized Edition, p. 62).

More such examples of additions are also found in its New Testament.

Scrivener wrote: “In some places, they [referring to the interpolations or additions from the Latin Vulgate found in the Great Bible] are retained” in the Bishops’ Bible (Supplement, p. 96).

 

[Logos1560]

Try to stay on the topic of the O.P., if you would.

You do not practice what you preach. You do not engage in serious discussion. Whenever a claim that you make is soundly demonstrated to be misleading or factually incorrect, you divert with your carnal smear tactics or personal attacks. I have addressed claims and assertions that you yourself posted, but you refuse to correct any incorrect claims that you make.

Part of the topic of this O. P. is the Textus Receptus, which I addressed.

The Textus Receptus or Received Text is part of the O.P. so comments concerning it are on topic.

 

[Logos1560]

Why do all of your posts either try in vain to address KJVOnly Ruckmanites,

Your opinion of my posts is incorrect.

I have nowhere claimed that you are a Ruckmanite. I have clearly informed you that my use of the accurate, defined term KJV-only does not refer only to Peter Ruckman and his followers. You are the one who incorrectly tries to equate KJV-only with Ruckman's view when that is not what the term means. There is no sound reason for your complaints concerning the accurate term KJV-only.

 

[Logos1560]

The O.P. is:

Are there Differences Between the Received Text
and the Westcott-Hort Greek Text?

Before your question can be answered, the term Received Text needs to be explained and defined. The fact remains that there is not one Received Text that is 100% identical in all its many editions and in all its claimed underlying manuscripts. There are twenty to thirty varying printed editions of the Textus Receptus. Are there differences between the varying Textus Receptus editions would be a question that answers your question?

I have not recommended nor advocated the Westcott-Hort Greek Text, and I have not claimed that there are no differences between it and all the varying TR editions. I have not claimed that there are no errors in the Westcott-Hort Greek text.

Strangely and inconsistently, some will condemn the Westcott-Hort Greek text for readings that are found in one or more of the varying TR editions or in the claimed 5,000 Greek NT manuscripts said to support the TR even though it was not actually based on all them.

Do you ask your question in order to try to use the fallacy of composition to attack the Westcott-Hort text? You seem to condemn the entire Westcott-Hort Greek text as corrupt even though the majority of it is the same as the Textus Receptus.

Henry Virkler noted: “The fallacy of composition occurs when someone assumes that what is true of the individual members of a class is true of the entire class” (Christian’s Guide to Critical Thinking, p. 202). In his glossary, Gordon Clark defined composition as “an informal logical fallacy in which the characteristic of the part is attributed to the whole” (Logic, p. 134).

Evidence of errors in the Westcott-Hort Greek text does not make its entire text corrupt, and it would not prove exclusive only claims for the KJV to be true and scriptural. Questions do not establish nor determine truth. Your question can be answered with questions.

 

[Alan Gross]

Never mind, man. I found some pertinent information.

I don't want you making yourself sick
trying to veer within range of the O.P.'s subject matter:
"Are there Differences Between the Received Text
and the Westcott-Hort Greek Text?"

I have not claimed that there are no differences
between it and all the varying TR editions.

...

"A Statistical Comparison of Editions
of the Greek New Testament."

"Using a database of various readings,
I compared Scrivener's Textus Receptus
(representing the readings underlying the King James Version)

with four Critical Texts, and identified 4165 translatable differences
adopted by either Tregelles 1857, Tischendorf 1869,
Westcott & Hort 1881, or Nestle-Aland 1979.
...

"In these 4165 translatable differences found within these four Critical Texts,
the types of differences are:

Omissions..........1915......46%
Substitutions......1577......38%
Additions.............529.......13%
Transpositions....144.........3%
...

"In these 4165 places, where translatable differences were found,
the numbers for each text are:

Tregelles...............3095......74%
Nestle-Aland.........3323......80%
Tischendorf...........3498......84%
Westcott & Hort....3618......87%
...

"Within this sample of 4165 places, where translatable differences were found,
the agreement of the four Critical Texts is exhibited in the following table.

"For each pairing, the number of agreements
is given over the number of places in which either text differs from the TR.

.........................Tregelles...Tischendorf...Westcott-Hort...Nestle-Aland.
"Tregelles....... 3095/3095.. 2765/3828.... 2907/3806....... 2803/3615
"Tischendorf ...2765/3828.. 3498/3498.....3094/4022 .......3023/3798
"Westcott-Hort 2907/3806.. 3094/4022 ....3618/3618....... 3195/3746
"Nestle-Aland .2803/3615 ..3023/3798.... 3195/3746....... 3323/3323
...

"The percentage of agreement for each pair is thus:

.......................Tregelles...Tischendorf... Westcott-Hort...Nestle-Aland
Tregelles ..........100%.......... 72% ...............76% .................78%
Tischendorf ........72%.........100% ...............77% .................80%
Westcott-Hort .....76% ..........77% .............100% .................85%
Nestle-Aland ......78% ......... 80% ...............85% ................100%
...

Some Observations on the Findings.

"From these findings, it may be seen that where the Critical Texts
diverge from the sixteenth-century Textus Receptus,
they largely agree with one another.

"72% of the translatable differences from the Textus Receptus
were agreed upon by Tregelles and Tischendorf
long before the publication of the Westcott-Hort text.

"The Westcott-Hort text (1881) departs furthest from the TR.

"The Nestle text (1979), though it largely corresponds
with the Westcott-Hort text, differs from it in 551 places.

"In 295 (54%) of these places it returns to the readings of the TR.

"The Nestle text also has the highest percentage of agreement
with each of the others, ranging from 78%
with Tregelles to 85% agreement with Westcott & Hort..."

Michael D. Marlowe
October 2001

"For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the Lord,
and to practice it, and to teach its statutes and ordinances in Israel."
(Ezra 7:10).


"The body of data used for this study
is given in the Collation of Critical Editions on this site."

 

[Alan Gross]

"I compared Scrivener's Textus Receptus
(representing the readings underlying the King James Version)

with four Critical Texts, and identified 4165 translatable differences
adopted by either Tregelles 1857, Tischendorf 1869,
Westcott & Hort 1881, or Nestle-Aland 1979."
...

Following up on the comparisons in the previous post, this site gives the information on the differences between these three Greek Texts;

Byzantine Majority Text (MT): The Greek New Testament: Byzantine Textform. Second Edition. Complied, arranged, and thoroughly updated by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont. Publication forthcoming.

Textus Receptus (TR): F.H.A Scrivener’s 1894 edition.

Critical Text (CT): The Greek New Testament edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 1966, 1968, 1975 by the United Bible Societies and 1993, 1994 by Deutsche Bibelgesellsschaft (German Bible Society), Stuggart (which is identical to the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition of the Greek New Testament).

Abbreviations and Notations:

The following Abbreviations and Notations are used in this appendix:

MT: - Byzantine Majority Text.

TR: - Textus Receptus

CT: - Critical Text

MT/ TR: - Both indicated Greek texts have the same reading.

eating … to God - Words which are identical in all Greek texts have not been written out, or the entire passage enclosed by and including the words around the ellipse are omitted by the other Greek text.

brackets - The Greek text considers the word(s) to be of doubtful authenticity.

double brackets - The Greek text considers the word(s) to be of very doubtful authenticity.

omits - The word(s) do not appear in the indicated Greek text.

{the} - Indicates words for which the Greek text considers the textual evidence to be divided as to whether they are original or not.

The Variants included below are those most important ones
found in Matthew and Mark.

The remainder of The New Testament is here:
Most Important Textual Variants in the New Testament.

Matthew:

1:7 MT/ TR: Asa - CT: Asaph

1:8 MT/ TR: Asa - CT: Asaph

1:10 MT/ TR: Amon - CT: Amos (twice)

5:22 MT/ TR: without cause - CT: omits

6:13 MT/ TR: Because Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory into the ages! So be it! - CT: omits

9:13 MT/ TR: to repentance - CT: omits

12:47 MT/ TR: includes verse - CT: brackets verse

15:5 MT: ‘and by no means shall he honor his father or his mother.’ - TR: moves this statement to the beginning of verse 6 - CT: moves this statement to the beginning of verse 6, and omits or his mother

16:2 MT/ TR: includes all of verse 2 and verse 3 - CT: brackets everything after to them in verse 2 and all of verse 3.

17:21 MT/ TR: includes verse - CT: omits verse

18:11 MT/ TR: includes verse - CT: omits verse

19:9 MT/ TR: and the one having married the one having been divorced commits adultery - CT: omits

19:17 MT/ TR: “Why do you call Me good? No one [is] good except One-God. - CT: “Why are you asking Me about the good? [There] is [only] One [who] is good.

20:16 MT/ TR: for many are called, but few chosen - CT: omits

20:22 MT: drinking, or … baptized. - TR: drinking, and … baptized. - CT: drinking. (omits or to be baptized [with] the baptism which I am baptized)

20:23 MT/ TR: and the baptism which I am baptized [with], you* will be baptized - CT: omits

21:44 MT/ TR: includes verse - CT: brackets verse

23:13 MT: includes verse 13 - TR: includes verse 13 but reverses verses 13 and 14 and moves But to the new verse 14 - CT: omits verse 13 and numbers verse 14 as verse 13 and includes But in the new verse 13

23:25 MT: unrighteousness. - TR/ CT: lack of self-control.

24:36 MT/ TR: heavens, - CT: heavens, nor the Son,

25:13 MT/ TR: in which the Son of Humanity is coming. - CT: omits

26:28 MT/ TR: new - CT: omits

26:39 MT: having approached [God] a little [distance away] - TR/ CT: having gone a little beyond [them]

26:61 MT: But later two false witnesses having come forward, - TR/ CT: Moves this phrase to the end of verse 60

27:34 MT/ TR: wine vinegar - CT: wine

27:35 MT/ CT: a lot. - TR: a lot, so that the [word] having been spoken by the prophet should be fulfilled, “They divided My garments among themselves and over My clothing they cast a lot.” [Psalm 22:18]

28:9 MT/ TR: But as they were going to tell to His disciples, - CT: omits

Mark:

1:1 MT/ TR: God’s Son - CT: {God's Son}

1:2 MT/ TR: in the prophets, - CT: in Isaiah the prophet,

2:17 MT/ TR: to repentance - CT: omits

3:19 MT/ TR: And they come into a house. - CT: moves this sentence to beginning of verse 20

6:11 MT/ TR: Positively, I say to you*, it will be more tolerable for Sodom or Gomorrah in [the] day of judgment than for that city.” - CT: omits entire sentence

7:8 MT/ TR: baptisms of pitchers and cups, and many such other similar things you* do. - CT: omits this part of the sentence

7:16 MT/ TR: includes verse - CT: omits verse

9:38 MT/ TR: who does not follow us - CT: omits

9:44 MT/ TR: includes verse - CT: omits verse

9:46 MT/ TR: includes verse - CT: omits verse

9:49 MT/ TR: and every sacrifice will be salted with salt. - CT: omits

10:7 MT/ TR: and will be joined to his wife. - CT: {and will be joined to his wife}

11:26 MT/ TR: includes verse - CT: omits verse

12:15 MT/ TR: “Should we give, or should we not give?” - CT: moves sentence to the end of verse 14

13:14 MT/ TR: the one having been spoken [of] by Daniel the prophet - CT: omits

14:24 MT/ TR: New - CT: omits

14:27 MT/ TR: because of Me on this night - CT: omits

14:70 MT/ TR: and your accent is like [theirs] - CT: omits

15:3 MT/ CT: [things]. - TR: [things], but He answered nothing.

15:28 MT/ TR: includes verse - CT: omits verse

16:9-20 MT/ TR: includes passage - CT: double brackets passage. The CT also includes a shorter ending in double brackets. It reads:

Then they promptly reported all these [things] having been instructed to Peter and the [ones] with [him]. Then also Jesus Himself sent out through them from [the] rising [of the sun] [fig., from the east] and as far as [the] west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of the eternal salvation. Amen.

The remainder of The New Testament is here:
Most Important Textual Variants in the New Testament.

 

[Logos1560]

I found some pertinent information.

Pertinent information concerning the Received Text was presented that you try to dodge, avoid, or dismiss.

Thanks for finally admitting that there are at least three Greek NT texts, not only two as you earlier suggested.

 

[Dave G]

Are there Differences
Between the Received Text
and the Westcott-Hort Greek Text?

Many differences. All one has to do is compare them side by side.

 

[Alan Gross]

Many differences. All one has to do is compare them side by side.

True that. Hello, Dave G. Thank you, for all you've contributed to the BB.

It's almost like one is a work of faith on a Sacred endeavor
and the other treating the effort as if it is not different than any other book
and, like Charles Taze Russell, where someone is just writing their own version of "The Bible", and adding to, or leaving out, whatever they feel like (and/or, whatever someone else, or others, WANT added, or removed.)

 

[Alan Gross]

Thanks for finally admitting that there are at least three Greek NT texts, not only two as you earlier suggested.

The TR (Textus Receptus) is a collation of the Majority Text.

The Majority Text is just that ... the Majority of Greek Manuscripts.

They agree for the most part, and are (what I believe)
the Best Preservation of the Original.

They are Faithful Copies of the Originals.

And so, God Preserved His Word through His Churches
in the Manuscripts she always had & used.

You could say, like any number of folks, that the Received Text, or Textus Receptus, is the name given to a series of Byzantine based Greek texts of the New Testament printed between 1500 and 1900.

MT: - Byzantine Majority Text.

TR: - Textus Receptus.

If I, as many, simply categorize the MT &TR, as contestants in the comparisons for which we have support of The Divine Inspiration of the Original Autographs and The Providential Preservation of The Library of Books in the original languages which are faithfully compiled into one Bible (or any number of Bibles, similarly composed, in the language of your choice) that is/are sufficient for all matters of faith and practice, as perfectly exact copies of God's Original Words, and which are, therefore, with additions and subtractions irrelevant to establishing and maintaining their Authority as God's Word

(which is what 'perfect' is, i.e., "more perfect than humanly possible", supernaturally within God's Boundaries for His revelation to Mankind, based on the similarities and 'differences' between New Testament quotes of passages from The Old Testament

and "exact copies", in the sense of any 'copy' of a Masterpiece of any discipline is inherently "a copy", which determines it to be of necessity an impossibly absolute identical work as the Original God-Breathed Manuscripts (of which, none are in existence) and yet, in their Printed Writing and Bound Content as a BOOK
are typically denominated as they are, by this:
1689 BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH IN MODERN ENGLISH, to be
The Very Godhead's Most Holy Scriptures.

Chapter 1:

1. The Holy Scriptures are the only Sufficient, Certain,
and Infallible Standard of all Saving Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience.1

The light of nature and the Works of Creation and Providence so clearly demonstrate the Goodness, Wisdom, and Power of God that people are left without excuse; however, these demonstrations are not sufficient to give the knowledge of God and His will that is necessary for Salvation.2

Therefore, the Lord was pleased at different times
and in various ways to Reveal Himself and to Declare His Will to His churches.3

To Preserve and Propagate the truth better and to establish and comfort His churches with greater certainty against the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and the world,

The Lord put this Revelation
Completely in Writing.

Therefore, the Holy Scriptures are absolutely necessary,
because God’s former ways of revealing His Will to His people
have now ceased.4

1. 2 Timothy 3:15–17; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29, 31; Ephesians 2:20.
2 Romans 1:19–21; Romans 2:14,15; Psalm 19:1–3. 3 Hebrews 1:1.
4 Proverbs 22:19–21; Romans 15:4; 2 Peter 1:19, 20.

4. The Authority of the Holy Scriptures Obligates belief in them.

This Authority does not depend on the testimony of any person or church
but on God the Author alone, Who is Truth itself.

Therefore, the Scriptures are to be received
because they are the Word of God.7

7. 2 Peter 1:19–21; 2 Timothy 3:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 John 5:9.

5. The testimony of the churches of God may stir and persuade us
to adopt a High and Reverent respect for the Holy Scriptures.

Moreover, the Heavenliness of the Contents,
the power of the System of Truth, the Majesty of the style,
the Harmony of all the parts, the central focus on giving all glory to God,
the Full Revelation of the Only Way of Salvation,
and many other Incomparable Qualities and Complete Perfections,
all provide Abundant Evidence that the Scriptures are the Word of God.

Even so, our Full Persuasion and Assurance of the Infallible Truth
and Divine authority of the Scriptures
comes from the Internal Work of the Holy Spirit
Bearing Witness by and with the Word in our hearts.8

8 John 16:13,14; 1 Corinthians 2:10–12; 1 John 2:20, 27.

6. The Whole Counsel of God concerning everything essential
for HIS OWN GLORY and man’s SALVATION, FAITH, and LIFE
is either explicitly stated or by necessary inference
contained in the Holy Scriptures.

Nothing is ever to be added to the Scriptures,
either by new revelation of the Spirit or by human traditions.9

Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the INWARD Illumination
of the Spirit of God is necessary for a Saving Understanding
of what is Revealed in the Word.10

We recognize that some circumstances
concerning the Worship of God and Government of His churches
are common to human actions and organizations
and are to be Ordered by the light of nature and Christian wisdom,
following the General Rules of the Word, which must always be observed.11

9. 2 Timothy 3:15–17; Galatians 1:8,9. 10 John 6:45; 1 Corinthians 2:9–12.
11 1 Corinthians 11:13, 14; 1 Corinthians 14:26, 40.


CT: - Critical Text.

And then, in so being, with the "Critical Text"
forfeiting any claim to authenticity by and through
every means of disqualifying itself
as being any serious contender for candidacy in a 'sufficient', 'complete', 'certain', 'infallible' standard of any kind
in relationship to The Creator God of The Universe
and Author of The Eternal Triune Godhead's Most Holy Scriptures,

with all due respect to their claim to never be producing anything more
than a normal man-made book, nor their stated goal and intension
to do otherwise, such as to be representing God,
or of being in relationship with God,
or in Invoking the Involvement and Intervention of God,
in their development and publication, in any way, by any criteria,

there would remain, by default, only one Hebrew/Greek text, not two,
three, or forty-three hundred.

 

[Alan Gross]

Pertinent information concerning the Received Text was presented that you try to dodge, avoid, or dismiss.

If pertinent information concerning the Received Text
could be irrelevant to the Featured O.P.;
"Are there Differences
Between the Received Text
and the Westcott-Hort Greek Text?

You did it.

Oh, here it is:
What is the Textus Receptus?

• Textus Receptus is the name given to a series of Byzantine based Greek texts of the New Testament printed between 1500 and 1900.
• The name Textus Receptus was first used, to refer to editions of the Greek New Testament published by the Elzevir Brothers in 1633. The name has been retrospectively applied to all the printed Greek texts of the same Byzantine text-type.
• Textus Receptus was established on the Byzantine text-type, also called the Majority Text, which represents over 90% of the 5,800+ Greek manuscripts of the New Testament still in existence today

Textus Receptus contains the translation base for the first Greek translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale and is the textual base for the Bishops Bible, the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible.

• Textus Receptus was published by Desiderius Erasmus in his 1516 edition of the Greek New Testament: Novum Instrumentum omne.
• Textus Receptus was refined by Robert Estienne [Stephanus] in 1550.
• Textus Receptus was further refined by Theodore Beza in 1598.
• Textus Receptus was again edited by F.H.A. Scrivener in 1881.

Textus Receptus strongly upholds the Christian faith:

• Textus Receptus is not corrupted by the deletions, additions and amendments of the Minority Text.
• Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc.
• Textus Receptus agrees with the vast majority of the citations from scripture by the early church fathers. It has now been calculated that there are more than one million quotations of the New Testament by the fathers. These fathers come from as early as the late first century and the middle ages.
• Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy, heresies and unbelief.

Erasmus did not invent the Textus Receptus, but simply collated a collection of what was already the vast majority of New Testament Manuscripts in the Byzantine tradition.

The first Greek New Testament to be collated was the Complutensian Polyglot in (1514), but it was not published until eight years later, Erasmus' was the second Greek New Testament collated and was published and printed in (1516).

Alan's note: Whereas, The KJV is a collation and additional version
of the Textus Receptus, in its own right, simply by being collated
from a collection of what was already the vast majority
of New Testament Manuscripts in the Byzantine tradition,

underlying William Tyndale's version of the Bible in English,
as well as being the textual base for the Bishops Bible,
and the Geneva Bible,
from which the KJB was another English Translation and Revision,
with added reference to the Original Languages.

 

[Logos1560]

Why do all of your posts either try in vain to address KJVOnly Ruckmanites,
or foretell Anti-KJVOnly Ruckmanite arguments?

Your question tries in vain to misrepresent and distort my scripturally-based points that would apply to the Bible text and translation views of all believers.

You have been soundly informed several times that the accurate term KJV-only does not mean Ruckmanite as you incorrectly allege.

 

[Logos1560]

Erasmus did not invent the Textus Receptus, but simply collated a collection of what was already the vast majority of New Testament Manuscripts in the Byzantine tradition.

Erasmus did not come close to collating the vast majority of Greek NT manuscripts in the Byzantine tradition. Erasmus likely had less than ten Greek NT manuscripts, and he had checked some readings in a few more Greek manuscripts.

John William Burgon as edited by Edward Miller wrote: “Erasmus in 1516 edited the New Testament from a very small number of manuscripts, probably only five” (Traditional Text, p. 3). KJV-only author Robert Sargent maintained that Erasmus “used only two manuscripts for the bulk of his work, with another two for comparison, and a fifth for the book of the Revelation” (English Bible, p. 155). William Combs asserted: “Seven manuscripts were used by Erasmus in Basel to compile the Greek text which was printed alongside his Latin translation” (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Spring, 1996, p. 45). William Combs claimed that “Erasmus had 3 manuscripts of the Gospels and Acts; 4 manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles, and only 1 manuscript of Revelation” (Ibid.).

Jan Krans noted that “in John he [Erasmus] used min. 2 and in Acts min. 2815, which were corrected and marked-up as printer’s copy. Both manuscripts contain many errors, which affect not only spelling (itacisms etc.) but also missing words and phrases through homoeoteleuton etc.” (Beyond What is Written, p. 62). Jan Krans asserted: “In the case of Acts Erasmus initially supposed that the Greek manuscripts he consulted suffered from omissions, while later, having consulted more sources, he came to doubt the Vulgate additions (Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; 10:6; 14:7; 23:25; 24:6-7)” (p. 61, footnote 36). Jan Krans noted: “A key element in the understanding of Erasmus’ conjectural emendation are the many instances in which he inferred Greek readings on the basis of the Latin Vulgate” (p. 11).

Erasmus could be said to have invented some readings in his edited Greek text since they were conjectures found in no known Greek NT manuscripts.

KJV defender Edward Hills listed several renderings in the KJV that Erasmus added to the Traditional Greek text from the Latin Vulgate (KJV Defended, pp. 200-202). Edward Hills listed additions by Erasmus at Matthew 10:8, 27:35, John 3:25, Acts 8:37, Acts 9:5, 6, 20:28, Romans 16:25-27, and Revelation 22:19.

 

[Logos1560]

Textus Receptus is not corrupted by the deletions, additions and amendments of the Minority Text

Your unproven opinion ignores and avoids a number of facts.

The printed Textus Receptus editions may have as many as 1,000 minority readings found in an actual minority of collated Greek NT manuscripts.

Actual verifiable facts from the twenty to thirty textually-varying printed Textus Receptus editions would demonstrate that they do have some additions, deletions, or amendments even when just compared to each other and especially when compared to their underlying Greek NT manuscripts.

The Greek NT manuscripts that underlie the varying TR editions differ in whether or not they include the following whole verses: Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7. Scrivener maintained that Acts 15:34 is omitted by several manuscripts including over fifty cursives and that “Erasmus inserted it in his editions from the margin of Codex 4” (Introduction, Vol. II, p. 373). Some other significant differences in TR editions are found involving clauses and phrases at Mark 15:3c, John 8:6c, John 8:9b, John 8:59c, John 19:38c, James 4:6b, 1 John 2:23b, Revelation 5:11b, Revelation 18:23a, and Revelation 21:26.

In the 1550 Greek text edition by Stephanus, over 2,000 differences are indicated in the textual marginal notes from only fifteen Greek manuscripts and the printed Complutensian edition.