Looking Closer at the Textus Receptus

There are textual differences between the KJV and modern translations like theNASB or NIV because the TR follows the Byzantine text-type, while modern textsdraw from the Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean,

and

Byzantine text-types, creatingan eclectic type that seeks to give the original readings as preserved in thesevarious textual families. It should be noted that the TR follows one

stream

of theByzantine text-type; that is, at times when the Byzantine family gives variantreadings, the TR will follow one particular element, an element that is not alwayseven the majority Byzantine-type reading.Most of the time the differences between the TR and the modern texts are the samedifferences that exist between the Byzantine text-type and the other text-types.Sometimes, though, the TR goes off by itself and either gives a reading notsupported by Greek manuscripts at all or supported by only a very few over againstthe large majority. It is important to understand that the TR is

not

identical with theMajority Text, even though it is closely related. The TR is its own text, and it is oftenfound in disagreement with the Majority Text as well as with modern critical texts. The textual variations that fall into the “Byzantine text-type versus other text-types” group will make up the bulk of this paper. For now, let’s look closely at the TR and some of its more interesting readings.With Erasmus’s use of Reuchlin’s manuscript of Revelation

this led to some textualerrors, the most famous of which are found in Revelation 17. In verse 4, the scribecreated a never-before-seen Greek word,

akathartetos

(the actual term is

akatharta

), which is still to be found in the pages of the Trinitarian Bible Society’s

Textus Receptus

. At verse 8, the scribe mistakenly wrote, “

ouk esti kaiper esti

”(“and is not, and yet is” KJV) instead of “

ouk estin kai parestai

” (“and is not and willcome” NASB). There are other important errors as well. The final six verses were absent fromErasmus’s lone manuscript; pressed for time, he translated the passage from theVulgate into Greek so as to avoid a “gaping lacuna” in the text

and admitting theaction in his notations. We may chuckle at such a procedure today, and certainlyErasmus took criticism for it, but anyone familiar with the languages involved has toadmire how well he did, all things considered. In the process, he did make a numberof mistakes, as we would expect. The amazing thing is that these mistakes

continue

in the TR to this very day. WhyErasmus did not change them at a later time, we cannot say. He unashamedlymade use of better texts of Revelation in his later editions, but he left these errorsintact. Even more mind-boggling is that they then survived the editorial labors of

It is well known that Erasmus struggled with the text of Revelation. Not finding any manuscripts thatcontained the book, he borrowed one from his friend Reuchlin. Erasmus was quite pleased with thistext, feeling that it was “of such great age that it might be thought to have been writing in the time of the apostles” (See his

Annotations

, not 2 on Revelation 3). He had an unknown copyist make a freshcopy and returned the original to Reuchlin. The copyist likewise had difficulty with the text (themanuscript contained a commentary on Revelation, in which the actual scriptural text was imbedded),and as a result made some mistakes that found their way into the printed editions of Erasmus’s Greektext and finally into the text of the KJV.

“

ne hiaret lacuna

.” A “lacuna” is a hole, a gap in the text.

Stephanus and Beza to arrive unchanged in the hands of the KJV translators andsubsequently ended up in the King James Version.Other places where Erasmus’s work, and hence the

Textus Receptus

, falls shortincludes Revelation 1:6, where the KJV has “made us kings and priests,” while thevast majority of manuscripts have “made us to be a kingdom and priests” (NIV).Another reading that

should

be significant to the KJVO advocates is found soonthereafter in verse 8, where the KJV reads “saith the Lord,” while nearly every Greekmanuscript reads as the NASB, “says the Lord God.” Surely if the modern textsdeleted “God” in a passage that can be identified with the Lord Jesus Christ and sois relevant to His deity, we would never hear the end of it. Yet here the KJV has anerrant reading with virtually no Greek manuscript support at all.Another important accidental deletion is at Revelation 14:1. Compare the KJV andNASB renderings:

KJVNASB

And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood onthe mount Sion, and with him anhundred forty and four thousand, havinghis Father's name written in theirforeheads. Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb wasstanding on Mount Zion, and with Himone hundred and forty-four thousand,having His name and the name of HisFather written on their foreheads. The name of the Lamb, identified by the phrase “His name and,” is not found in the TR. A grand total of six Greek manuscripts

, comprising one uncial text from theninth century and five miniscules, all dating quite late (two of which are highlysuspect), do not contain this phrase. The reason for its non-inclusion is simple: thisis a case of

homoeoteleuton

, “similar endings.” The repetition of “his name and”caused those few scribes to skip to the second occurrence, deleting the reference tothe name of the Lamb. Again, if the situation were reversed, this passage would beused by KJVO believers as evidence of anti-Christian bias by “modern translations.”We’ll note two more intriguing problems in the TR. The first is the addition of “himthat liveth for ever and ever” at Revelation 5:14. This phrase, found in only threesuspect Greek manuscripts

, is absent from Reuchlin’s. Second, in Revelation 15:3,where “King of saints” should be either “King of the ages” (NIV) or “King of thenations” (NASB), the TR’s reading again lacks Greek manuscript support.Why does the TR often give readings that place it in contrast with the unitedtestimony of the Majority Text and the modern texts (e.g., the UBS4 and the NA27)?Often, because Erasmus imported entire passages from the Latin Vulgate.

This ishow he came up with “the book of life” at Revelation 22:19 rather than the readingof the Greek manuscripts, “the tree of life.” Seemingly, the Vulgate edition Erasmus

Those are uncial P and miniscules 1, 57, 141, 146, and 159.

Those are miniscules 57, 137, and 141. Some Latin manuscripts have the phrase.

KJVO advocates are quick to accuse modern Greek texts of being somehow “polluted” byRoman Catholicism, yet it is the TR itself that often contains entire passages based on theLatin Vulgate’s authority. In

Final Authority

, William Grady expends much energy forging alink between the Vatican and modern texts, even as he overlooks passages such as thesewith remarks like: “Have a problem with the

Textus Receptus

? Tell it to the judge!” (72).

used to translate the last six verses of Revelation into Greek contained this reading,and it survived all the editorial work on the text over the next century to end upserving as the basis for the KJV.Acts 8 and 9 also are expanded in the TR due to material brought over from theVulgate. For example, if you look up 8:37 (“And Philip said, If thou believest with allthine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ isthe Son of God,” KJV) in the NIV, you will not find it (outside of the textual footnote). The verse is found in very few Greek manuscripts, none earlier than the sixthcentury, and Erasmus inserted it due to its presence in the Vulgate and in themargin of one Greek manuscript. This passage is surely orthodox and, in fact, isoften laden with emotional attachments as well, which makes it easy to preachagainst its “deletion” by modern texts. But, of course, we must overcome ouremotionalism to ask the central question: “What did Luke write at this point?” Whilethe insertion certainly speaks the truth, so would inserting the Nicene Creedbetween Titus 2 and 3. But no one is going to suggest doing that. We cannot“improve” upon what God has revealed.Erasmus indicated that the Vulgate and the parallel passage in Acts 26 caused himto insert “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” at Acts 9:5 as well, againplacing the TR in direct conflict with the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. TheVulgate is the source of a large section of 9:6 (“And he trembling and astonishedsaid, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him…”), as well as“the word of God” at 19:20 rather than the Greek texts’ reading

, “the word of theLord.”Furthermore, the TR stands against all other texts in reading “the eyes of yourunderstanding” instead of “the eyes of your heart” at Ephesians 1:18, and itlikewise is alone at Ephesians 3:9 with “the fellowship of the mystery” over againstthe Greek manuscript witness reading “the administration of the mystery.” So toothe TR reading, “Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity”at 2 Timothy 2:19, is found in only one uncial text and one miniscule text overagainst all others that read, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord abstainfrom wickedness.”What KJVO advocates often fail to understand is that the KJV translators did notutilize just one Greek text when working on the New Testament. They drew from avariety of sources but mainly from Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza.

When thesesources diverged, the decision lay with the translators themselves. Edward F. Hills,a staunch KJV defender, listed a number of instances where the translators had todecide between competing readings in the available texts, adding yet another stepto the process that resulted in the text of the KJV. As this is a vital point inexamining the KJVO claims, we provide here a summary of the information given byHills, with some additional information from modern sources. The following chartprovides the major passages where various editions of the

Textus Receptus

differfrom one another, a brief listing of the manuscript support behind each reading, and

Codex E contains “word of God.” Codex E is a bilingual, Latin/Greek manuscript from theearly seventh century.

There are some places where sources as divergent as the Vulgate and Jewishcommentaries in the Mishnah were used.