Requesting some clarity regarding the texts of GNT-TR vs GNT-TRS

[Julia Falling]

I asked Accordance to compare the two.  A whole lot of differences came up but most appear to be spelling, versification, etc..  However, there are real differences.  For instance @ Mk 13:9; Lk 2:22; Rev 16:5 …

 

If one reads the description in "About This Text", it would appear that the main difference is that the GNT-TR is tagged w/o Strong's Numbers, and the GNT-TRS has Strong's Numbers but no tagging.  But the texts – the Greek words themselves – are not the same.  Why the differences?

 

It would be really nice to have a plain, ordinary, non-adjusted Stephanus 1550.  Or a plain, ordinary Oxford TR.  A plain, ordinary Greek text that gives us what a Greek scholar in the mid-19th century might have had on his shelf, pre-Scrivener, pre-Westcott&Hort, etc..  

 

    

 

 

[Alistair]

Hi Julie,

 

There may be no simple answer because there are different opinions as to what constitutes the textus receptus

 

I wonder if the following might help answer your question: it was compiled in 2007 and is unfinished, and the bibliography especially is incomplete, but see the footnotes for references.

It tries to fill in the gap between Erasmus and Westcott & Hort.

It tries to be factual/historical without making any judgments about the compilers of such texts or the texts or mss themselves.

 

*******

Introduction 2

Historical overview 3

Autographs 7

Persecution 7

The MSS problem 9

The fifteenth century: 10

Johannes Gutenberg 11

Ximenes (dates?) 12

Johann Froben (c.1460–1527) 14

Desiderius Erasmus (1469–1536?) 15

Appraisal of Erasmus 15

Erasmus’ sources 18

Response to Erasmus’ Greek NT 18

Positive: 18

Negative: 18

Style and content 18

The Comma Johanneum 18

Erasmus’ editions: 20

Colinaeus 21

Robert Estienne (aka Stephanus) (dates?) 22

Stephanus’ editions: 22

Theodore Beza (dates?) 24

Beza’s editions: 24

Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir (dates?) 25

Elzevir editions: 25

Later editions 26

John Mill (1645–1707) 26

Johann Albrect Bengel (1687–1752) 27

Johann Jakob Wettstein (1693–1754) 29

Johann Semler (1725-91) 29

Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812) 31

Karl Lachmann (1793–1851) 31

Constantin von Tischendorf (1815–1874) 31

Scholz 31

Gaussen 32

B F Westcott & F J A Hort 32

Summary 33

Bibliography 34

Accordance modules: 34

 

Introduction

The idea of a Bible accurately handed down without variation from the earliest times has gone. The Bible has a human history as well as a divine inspiration. It is a history full of interest, and it is one which all those who value their Bible should know, at least in outline, if only that they may be able to meet the criticisms of sceptics and the ignorant.¹

Criticism, instead of being merely negative, has become constructive,; and by facing the new facts with an open mind we can, without any subversion of fundamental beliefs, establish our knowledge on a firmer basis, and interpret it in a fresher and more living light.²

The Bible being to us what it is, it is of the highest importance that we should be satisfied of the authenticity of the title-deeds of our faith; that we should be able to accept them, not with a blind and unintelligent belief, but with an clear understanding of the manner in which the several books came into existence, and of the means by which they have been handed down to us.³

 

Historical overview

The history of the printed text of the New Testament may be these divided into three periods. The extends from the labors of the Complutensian errors to those of Mill; the second from Mill to Scholz; the third from Lachmann to the present time. The criticism of the first period was necessarily tentative and partial: the materials available for the construction of the text were few and imperfectly known. The second period made a great progress: the evidence of MSS. of versions, of the fathers, was collected with the greatest diligence and success; authorities were compared and classified; principles of observation and judgment were laid down. But the influence of the former period still lingered. The third period was introduced by the declaration of a new and sounder law. It was laid down that no right of possession could be pleaded against evidence, The “received” text, as such, was allowed no weight whatever. Its authority, on this view, must depend solely on critical worth. From first to last, in minute details of order and orthography, as well as in graver questions of substantial alteration, the text must be formed by a free and unfettered judgment.⁴

[This gives

Period 1: 1514 to 1707

Period 2: 1707 to 1830–6

Period 3: 1831 to at least 1884]

Kenyon outlines six periods in the history of New Testament textual criticism…⁵

Period 1: …From the dates of the composition of the various books of the New Testament, in the latter half of the first century, to the acceptance of Christianity by Constantine… A.D. 325… manuscripts written on papyrus, under the shadow of periodical persecution and destruction of copies… restricted command of scholarship and of material resources, and with little opportunity for the comparison of copies produced in different parts of the world or for the maintenance of a uniform text. It is in this period that all the textual problems were created which criticism has endeavoured, and stil endeavours, to solve.

Period 2: …From the acceptance of Christianity to the first appearance of the Greek New Testament in print… from 325 to 1516… period of the vogue of the vellum manuscript codex… written by hand, and all except a very few written on vellum… a few earlier… on papyrus, and more towards the end of it on paper… Thousands of copies have survived to our own day [AJKS 1932]… a large number of… the Vulgate… smaller quantities of translations into other languages, Syriac, Egyptian, Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Persian, and others. It was a period of the transmission of texts, not, except to a very small extent, of the critical revision of them. …immense number of copies (totally unrivalled by any book in all the literature of the ancient world)… but it did nothing for their critical evaluation and classification. …few scholars troubled themselves to question the accuracy of the copies produced, or to inquire after the original form of the sacred texts.

Period 3: …The establishment of the accepted form of the Greek New Testament. It begins with the first New Testament of Erasmus and the CP by Ximenes of the complete Greek Bible in 1522, and ends with the first Elzevir edition of 1624. Its result was the establishment of the Received Text, the Textus Receptus, which for two centuries and a half was the universally accepted form of the Greek Scriptures. …it is also the period of the formation of the English Bible, starting with Tyndale’s New Testament in 1525, and culminating in the Authorized Version of 1611, which represents the Textus receptus in an English dress.

[Kenyon’s footnote: “The standard forms of the Textus Receptus are the third edition of Stehanus… in 1550, and the Elzevir of 1624.”]

Period 4: …Extends from this date [AJKS i.e. 1624] to 1831. It is the period of the collection of materials for the criticism of the text embodied in the Textus Receptus. In 1627 the Codex Alexandrinus was brought from Constantinople to England, and the critical examination and comparison of manuscripts began. Scholars such as Walton (1657), Fell (1675), Mill (1707), Bentley (who never arrived at publication of his results), Bengel (1734), Wetstein (1751-2), Griesbach (1774-1806), Matthaei (1782-8), and Scholz (1830-60) collected, collated and described hundreds of Greek MSS., and formed regular apparatus critici for the examination of the text. …accumulation of material rather than the critical use of it. Only by Bengel, Semler (1764-7), and Griesbach was any considerable attempt made to draw constructive conclusions…

Period 5: …Covers the half-century from 1831 to 1881, and represents the first period of constructive criticism. The great names… are those of Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles. It was mainly through their labours that opinion was led to the point of realizing the necessity of a revision of the Textus Receptus; and these labours were brought to a head by Westcott and Hort.

Period 6: …Since 1881… [to the period of writing, i.e. 1932]… “the end of the period remains to be fixed by those who will come after” (p.5)… many interesting and important discoveries of MSS have been made, and much intensive study has been devoted to the material previously available… 

 

The verbal or textual criticism has for its object to restore as far as possible the original text of the Greek Testament from the oldest and most trustworthy sources, namely, the uncial manuscripts (especially, the Vatican and Sinaitic), the ante-Nicene versions, and the patristic quotations. In this respect our age has been very successful, with the aid of most important discoveries of ancient manuscripts. By the invaluable labors of Lachmann, who broke the path for the correct theory (Novum Testament. Gr., 1831, large Graeco-Latin edition, 1842–50, 2 vols.), Tischendorf (8th critical ed., 1869–72, 2 vols.), Tregelles (1857, completed 1879), Westcott and Hort (1881, 2 vols.), we have now in the place of the comparatively late and corrupt textus receptus of Erasmus and his followers (Stephens, Beza, and the Elzevirs), which is the basis of au Protestant versions in common use, a much older and purer text, which must henceforth be made the basis of all revised translations. After a severe struggle between the traditional and the progressive schools there is now in this basal department of biblical learning a remarkable degree of harmony among critics. The new text is in fact the older text, and the reformers are in this case the restorers. Far from unsettling the faith in the New Testament, the results have established the substantial integrity of the text, notwithstanding the one hundred and fifty thousand readings which have been gradually gathered from all sources. It is a noteworthy fact that the greatest textual critics of the nineteenth century are believers, not indeed in a mechanical or magical inspiration, which is untenable and not worth defending, but in the divine origin and authority of the canonical writings, which rest on far stronger grounds than any particular human theory of inspiration.⁶

 

Autographs

If it be inquired, what became of the autographs of these sacred books, and why they were not preserved; since this would have prevented all uncertainty respecting the true reading, and would have relieved the Biblical critic from a large share of labour; it is sufficient to answer, that nothing different has occurred, in relation to these autographs, from that which has happened to all other ancient writings. No man can produce the autograph of any book as old as the New Testament, unless it has been preserved in some extraordinary way, as in the case of the manuscripts of Herculaneum; neither could it be supposed, that in the midst of such vicissitudes, revolutions, and persecutions, as the Christian church endured, this object could have been secured by anything short of a miracle. ⁷

Persecution

History informs us of the fierce and malignant design of Antiochus Epiphanes to abolish every vestige of the sacred volume; but the same history assures us that the Jewish people manifested a heroic fortitude and invincible patience in resisting and defeating his impious purpose. They chose rather to sacrifice their lives, and suffer a cruel death, than to deliver up the copies of the sacred volume in their possession. And the same spirit was manifested, and with the same result, in the Dioclesian persecution of the Christians. Every effort was made to obliterate the sacred writings of Christians, and multitudes suffered death for refusing to deliver up the New Testament. Some, indeed, overcome by the terrors of a cruel persecution did, in the hour of temptation, consent to surrender the holy book; but they were ever afterwards called traitors; and it was with the utmost difficulty that any of them could be received again into the communion of the church after a long repentance, and the most humbling confessions of their fault. Now, if any canonical book was ever lost, it must have been in these early times when the word of God was valued far above life, and when every Christian stood ready to seal the truth with his blood.⁸

…The pagan priests… moved Diocletian to persecute the Christians. Hence began what is termed the tenth and last general persecution, which was the most severe of all, and continued nearly ten years…⁹

The experience of persecution sometimes entailed the confiscation and destruction of Christian books by Roman authorities, most notably in the Great Persecution (A.D. 303–305) under Diocletian. The requirement that Christian books be surrendered probably provoked pressing questions in the church about which books were sacred and should by no means be handed over and others which might be given up to imperial agents.¹⁰

The MSS problem

Printing was first invented in Europe in 1454; and the Hebrew Old Testament first appeared in print in 1488, and the Greek New Testament in 1516. Before these dates we are entirely dependent on manuscripts, i.e. handwritten copies; and since it is impossible to copy great quantities of writing without making mistakes, and since also, as we shall see, copyists were not always vey partucular about exact accuracy, and editors deliberately altered what they though was either erroneous or obscure, it results that no two manuscripts are ever exactly alike. …we are dependent on manuscripts, all of which have strayed more or less from the true originals; and from the thousands of manuscripts which have survived we have to determine, as best we can, what was the original form of each passage.¹¹

The fifteenth century:

Invention of the printing press with movable type

In the 15th century scholars were not concerned with the Greek text of the Bible: the Bible was in Latin (Jerome’s Vulgate)¹²

Fall of Constantinople Tuesday 29th May 1453—conquest by the Ottoman Turks under Sultan Mehmed II, marked destruction of the Byzantine Empire, death of Constantine XI. City renamed Istanbul, remained capital of the Ottoman Empire until that empire’s dissolution in 1922.¹³

Johannes Gutenberg

1454 First known printed item: a one-page indulgence (for the RC church)… Press of Fust and Gutenberg, in Mainz, Germany… 1456: First Bible: Latin Vulgate: folio size [what is a folio?] Print run unknown; 40 copies still in existence. Known as the Gutenberg Bible, or the Mazzarin Bible, because the copy which first attracted the attention of scholars was found in the library of Cardinal Mazzarin of Paris.¹⁴

Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg (c.1398 - 3 Feb 1468)

Gutenberg was born in the German city of Mainz, as the son of a merchant named Friele Gensfleisch zur Laden, who adopted the surname “zum Gutenberg” after the name of the neighborhood where the family had moved. Gutenberg was born from a wealthy patrician family, who dated their lines of lineage back to the thirteenth century. Gutenberg’s parents were goldsmiths, and coin minters.¹⁵

The first major product of Gutenberg’s press was a magnificent edition of the Bible. The text was Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, and the volume was published at Mayence (Mainz) between 1450 and 1456. During the next fifty years at least one hundred editions of the Latin Bible were issued by various publishing houses. In 1488 the first edition of the complete Hebrew Old Testament came from the Soncino Press in Lombardy. Before 1500 Bibles had been printed in several of the principal vernacular languages of Western Europe—Bohemian (Czech), French, German, and Italian.¹⁶

Two reasons may be suggested which help to account for the lapse of some sixty years from Gutenberg’s invention to the first printed Greek Testament… [1] the production of Greek fonts was difficult and expensive… attempt was made to reproduce the appearance of Greek miniscule handwriting with its numerous alternative forms of the same letter, as well as its many combinations of two or more letters (ligatures). [in the same way as German handwriting was imitated with German type] Instead… of producing type for merely the twenty-four letters of the Greek alphabet, printers prepared about 200 different characters. (Subsequently these variant forms of the same letters were abandoned, until today there remain only the two forms of the lower-case sigma…) [2] The principal cause… was doubtless the prestige of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate… the publication of the GNT offered to any scholar acquainted with [Latin and Greek] a tool with which to criticize and correct the official Latin Bible of the Church…¹⁷

 

Ximenes (dates?)

1502 Cardinal Ximenes of Toledo in Spain begins work of what was to become known as the Complutensian Polyglot. OT in Hebrew, Latin and Greek, (“with the Latin in the centre, the cardinal’s editors stated, just as Jesus hung on the cross between two thieves”) and the NT in Latin and Greek. Produced in Alcala, Spain, aka Complutum. The NT was printed in 1514 but was withheld from publication until the OT was completed. The OT was completed in 1517 but the approval of the pope [which pope?] was not given until 1520, and the complete work was apparently not available until 1522.¹⁸

[OT includes Aramaic, including the Targum Onkelos for the Torah.] [[Targum: an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) – from Wikipedia, “Targum”]]

[[CP the first printed polyglot, first printed Septuagint, first printed Greek NT, first printed Targum Onkelos - from Wikipedia, “Complutensian Polyglot Bible”]]

Francisco Cardinal Jiménez de Cisneros (1436 - 8 Nov 1517)… Among his literary works he is best known for funding the Complutensian Polyglot Bible, the first printed polyglot of the entire Bible… Gonzalo Jiménez de Cisneros was born to a poor family in Torrelaguna in Castile in 1436… Cardinal Cisneros is known by many name variations: 1. His birth name was Gonzalo, which he dropped in favour of Francisco when he converted to a Franciscan friar, [[in 1484 at the late age of 48 he abruptly decided to become a Franciscan friar. Giving up all his worldly belongings, and changing his baptismal name, Gonzalo, for that of Francisco]] and kept the rest of his life. It is sometimes spelled Gonzales or González (a surname meaning “son of Gonzalo”) which is a translation error. 2. Jiménez is the modern Spanish spelling variation of the original Ximénes. Often the “é” is dropped in favour of “e” for English readers… 3. The name “Cardinal Cisneros” is often used.¹⁹

…planned in 1502 by the cardinal primate of Spain, Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros (1437-1517)… under the editorial care of several scholars, of whom Diego Lopez de Zuñiga (Stunica) is perhaps best known²⁰

One of the less well-known collaborators in the project, who nevertheless played an important role in the preparation of the Greek text of the LXX and of the NT… was Demetrius Ducas, a Greek from Crete whom Ximenes brought to Alcalá to teach in his academy and to edit Greek books.²¹

Volume 5, the NT and a Greek glossary with Latin equivalents was printed first, colophon bears date 10 January 1514… Volume 6, Hebrew lexicon and an elementary Hebrew grammar printed next, 1515… Four volumes of the OT appeared last, the colophon of volume 4 bears date of 10 July 1517. The sanction of Pope Leo X, printed in Vol 1, was not obtained until 1520… it appears that the Polyglot was not actually circulated (published) until about 1522.²²

Johann Froben (c.1460–1527)

A Swiss printer, Froben, heard about the Complutensian Polyglot and approached Erasmus and asked him to produce a Greek NT ASAP.²³

[ It was rushed through because of marketing pressure – to be the first]

Johann Froben (Latin Johannes Frobenius, born ca. 1460 in Hammelburg, Franconia, died 27 October 1527 in Basel) was a famous printer and publisher in Basel.²⁴

Desiderius Erasmus (1469–1536?)

Appraisal of Erasmus

“Long before the issue of the movement was seen or apprehended, we behold Erasmus, the most accomplished scholar of the age, acting unconsciously as the pioneer of a Reformation, which at length he not only opposed, but apparently hated. He had been raised up by God to lash the vices of the Clergy, to expose the ignorance, venality, and sloth of the Mendicant Orders, and to exhibit the follies of Romanism in sarcastic invectives rendered imperishable by the elegant Latinity in which they were clothed. But he did still more. The world is indebted to him for the first edition of the entire New Testament in the Original Greek. He had also the honor of being the first modern translator of the New Testament into Latin. He published a valuable critical Commentary on the New Testament, which was early translated into English, and ordered to be placed in the Churches. Yet, great as the service undoubtedly was which he rendered to the cause of truth, he never dared to cast the yoke of Rome from his own neck, never stooped to identify himself with the Protestant Reformers; but lived and died, as there is reason to fear, a mean, trickling, timeserving Romanist, panting for preferment in a Church, the unsoundness of which he had so fearfully exposed. It is not, however, to be denied that God employed him as a most important instrument in shaking the foundations of the Papacy, and in preparing the way for the more successful efforts of more sincere and devoted servants of God.”²⁵

A Swiss printer, Froben, heard about the CP and approached Erasmus and asked him to produce a Greek NT ASAP. [ It was rushed through because of marketing pressure – to be the first] Erasmus had been anxious to undertake such a task and willing set about it, using no more than 6 MSS which he had available. His only non-Byzantine MSS of any antiquity was Codex 1, on which he seems to have not depended very much. Erasmus began his work in September 1515, and it was published seven months later in March 1516. His one MS of Revelation was mutilated, and he supplied the missing text, including the last six verses of the book, by translating the Latin back into Greek. Four further editions were published, but consulted few further MSS and only minor changes and corrections were made.²⁶

Erasmus of Rotterdam… (1469–1536)… on a visit to Basle in August 1514 he discussed the possibility [of a Greek NT]… with Johann Froben. April 1515… Erasmus at Cambridge… asked to begin immediately by Froben through a mutual friend, Beatus Rhenanus…accompanied by a promise to pay as much as anyone else might promise. Erasmus went to Basle again in July 1515… hoped to find GK MSS there… MSS required correcting… printing began 2 October 1515…finished 1st  March 1516… folio of about 1,000 pages… “precipitated rather than edited” (praecipitatum verius quam editum)… owing to the haste in production, [1st edition] contains hundreds of typographical errors, Scrivener declared it “in that respect the most faulty book I know”…²⁷

[6 MSS out of 5000 = 0.42%]

The third edition of Erasmus was the first to contain [the “Comma Johanneum”,] the “three heavenly witnesses” of 1 John 5:7-8. This passage was contained in the Vulgate but did not exist in any of Erasmus’ Greek MSS. Stunica, one of Ximenes editors [of the CP], protested its omission. Erasmus rashly said that he would include it in a later edition if the text could be shown in a Greek MS. Accordingly, one was provided “very possibly prepared for the purpose”: Codex 61. Erasmus’ third edition (1522) contained the text in Greek, but he later dropped it in his later editions. However, it was to be Erasmus’ third edition that was to have the most influence on textual tradition.²⁸

From Erasmus’ preface to his GNT:

Let [the student] approach the text… with reverence; bearing in mind that his first and only aim and object should be that he may catch and be changed into the spirit of what he there learns. It is the food of the soul; and to be of use, must not rest only in the memory or lodge in the stomach, but must permeate the very depths of the heart and mind… A fair knowledge of the three languages, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, of course, are the first things…. It would be well, too, were the student tolerably versed in other branches of learning…²⁹

Erasmus’ sources

Could not find a MSS which contained the entire Greek NT… used several MSS for various parts of the NT… for most of the text he relied on two rather inferior MSS from a monastic library at Basle, one of the Gospels and one of the Acts and Epistles, both dating from about the C12th… He compared these with two or three others of the same books and wrote his corrections for the printer in the margins or between the lines… For the book of Revelation he had one MSS from the C12th which he had borrowed from his friend Reuchlin… lacked the final leaf… last six verses… in other parts of this MSS the Greek text of the Revelation and the adjoining Greek commentary are so jumbled up as to be indistinguishable… in these sections [last 6 verses and the jumbled sections] Erasmus translated from the Vulgate in Greek… readings which have never been found in any Greek MSS but still perpetuated in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus…³⁰

In other places Erasmus introduced into his Greek text material taken from the Latin Vulgate… Acts 9:6… “And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” was frankly interpolated from the Vulgate… found in no Greek MS at this passage (but is found in the parallel account of Acts 22:10… became part of the TR, from which the KJV was made in 1611…³¹

ESV: But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”

KJV: And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

Response to Erasmus’ Greek NT

Reception was mixed…

Positive:

Found many purchasers throughout Europe… first two editions amounted to 3,300 copies… the 2nd edition was the basis for Luther’s tx…

Negative:

In certain circles was received with suspicion and even outright hostility… Erasmus’ Latin translation was regarded as a presumptuous innovation… particularly objectionable were the brief annotations in which E sought to justify his translation… included caustic comments aimed at the corrupt lives of many of the priests…³²

Style and content

First and second editions were diglots, including Erasmus’ own Latin translation alongside the Greek (see PDFs).

The Comma Johanneum

Background, information, MSS, facts, the Textus Receptus, etc

Erasmus’ editions:

(These dates confirmed in Tregelles’ Account)

1st 1516

Title: Novum Instrumentum

1518 The Aldine LXX, published in Venice, included Erasmus’ GNT (Tregelles’ Account). It seems to have been edited, ie was not verbatim. [From memory, source not confirmed] Corrected some errors that were in E1 (Tregelles’ Account).

2nd March 1519

Title: Novum Testamentum.

“The places in which the text was altered in this edition were (according to Mill) four hundred; many of these were the errata which had arisen from over-haste in the execution of the first edition.” (Tregelles’ Account)

“Soon after the appearance of Erasmus’s third edition, the Complutensian Polyglot found its way into general circulation.” (Tregelles’ Account)

3rd 1522

“This third edition differed from the text of the preceding (according to Mill) in 118 places: several of the amended readings were such as Erasmus took from the tacit corrections which had been introduced into the Aldine reprint of his own first edition.” (Tregelles’ Account)

4th 1527

Made reference to CP. “Except in the Revelation, Mill says, the fourth edition of Erasmus differed only in about ten places from his third.” (Tregelles’ Account)

5th 1535

“In the fifth edition of Erasmus, published in 1535, the year before his death, the text differs scarcely at all from that of the year 1527 (Mill says only in four places).” (Tregelles’ Account)

 

Colinaeus

The edition of Colinaeus (Paris, 1534) deserves mention because it was in some places based on MSS. which the editor had examined: it was not, however, by any means a, critical edition; that is, one in which the text was throughout examined with MSS; and thus, in the end of the Apocalypse, there are Erasmian readings retained. Colinaeus did not insert the text 1 John 5:7. This edition seems to have had no influence whatever on those which succeeded. (Tregelles’ Account)

Robert Estienne (aka Stephanus) (dates?)

One of a family of printers in Paris and later in Geneva. Published four editions of the Greek NT between 1546 and 1551, using the text of Erasmus and the CP and consulting about fifteen MSS. His third edition, which he called the Regia, a large folio-sized volume, published in 1550, the first Greek NT with something like a critical apparatus, giving variant readings from the 15 MSS he had consulted and from the CP in the margin. “It was this text which became the standard text in… Britain and the US” [= textus receptus] His fourth edition of 1551 contained the same Greek text as the third, but is the first to introduce verse numbers. Chapter divisions had been introduced in 1205 by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury.³³

Stephanus’ editions:

1st 1546 (Paris)

O mirificam Edition

“The first of these editions is usually called the O mirificam Edition, from the introductory sentence of the preface, O mirificam regis nostri optimi et praestantissimi principis liberalitatem. It has always been admired for the neatness of its typography, as well as for its correctness, only twelve errata (it is said) having been discovered in it.” (Horne’s Introduction)

2nd 1549 (Paris)

In the years 1546 and 1549, Robert Stephens printed at Paris two beautiful small editions of the Greek Testament (Tregelles’ Account)

“The second edition closely resembles the first in its exterior appearance, but differs from it in 67 places; of which four are doubtful readings, 37 not genuine, and 26 genuine, so that this latter edition has eleven readings of less authority than the former, to which however it is preferred on account of its greater rarity and correctness.” (Horne’s Introduction)

3rd 1550 (Paris)

Folio, bigger than th eprevious editions.

First with a critical apparatus: “…in the margin of which were given various readings from MSS. which had been collated by his son Henry Stephens.” … “This was the first collection of various readings of any extent” (Tregelles’ Account)

“The editions of 1546 and 1549 had contained a text blended from the Complutensian and Erasmian; in the folio, Erasmus was almost exclusively followed” (Tregelles’ Account) “…the researches of critics have shown that, except in the Apocalypse, it is scarcely any thing more than a reprint of Erasmus’s fifth edition.” (Horne’s Introduction)

Made reference to CP, & 15 MSS: “The various readings in the margin are from the Complutensian printed edition, and from fifteen MSS” (Tregelles’ Account)

AKA Textus Receptus, but see Elzevir 1624 & 1633

4th 1551 (Geneva)

[Date from Horne. Tregelles does not give a date for this edition OBATAM6 (p.161) gives 1557 for Stephanus 4th edition]—AJKS]

Printed in Geneva (previous editions were printed in Paris)

First with verse numbers/first divided into verses

“Robert Stephens reprinted the Greek New Testament at Geneva in 1551, in 8vo. with the Vulgate and Erasmus’s Latin versions, and parallel passages in the margin. This is the scarcest of all his editions, and is remarkable for being the first edition of the New Testament divided into verses.” (Horne’s Introduction)

Greek text same as 3rd edition (Tregelles’ Account)

“This fourth edition contains two Latin versions, the Vulgate and that of Erasmus, one on each side of the Greek text.” (Tregelles’ Account)

 

Theodore Beza (dates?)

French Protestant scholar, published nine editions of the Greek NT between 1565 and 1604, text essentially that of Erasmus and Stephanus, Beza’s reputation helped to promote the Greek text…³⁴

“Theodore Beza succeeded Robert Stephens as an editor of the Greek Testament: he published five editions in 1565, 1576, 1582, 1589, and 1598. He mostly followed the text of Stephens; and he not unfrequently mentions various readings, and he occasionally introduces changes into his text on MS. authority.” (Tregelles’ Account)

The edition of 1598, being esteemed the most accurate of any that had before been published, was adopted as the basis of the English version of the New Testament, published by authority in 1611.³⁵

Beza’s editions:

1st 1565 (date from Horne, vol. 2 p.136)

2nd 1576 (date from Horne, vol. 2 p.136)

3rd 1582 (date from Horne, vol. 2 p.136)

4th 1589 (date from Horne, vol. 2 p.136)

5th 1598 (date from Horne, vol. 2 p.136)

6th ????

7th ????

8th ????

9th 1604 ???? (date from Greenlee)

“The edition of 1598, being esteemed the most accurate of any that had before been published, was adopted as the basis of the English version of the New Testament, published by authority in 1611.”³⁶

Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir (dates?)

Publishers in Holland, published seven editions of the Greek NT between 1624 and 1678, purpose was commercial rather than critical, text based on those of Stephanus and Beza. Their editions were widely sold, their second edition of 1633 became the standard text in continental Europe. “In the preface to their second edition they included the optimistic statement: ‘Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus’ (’You have therefore the text now received by all: in which we give nothing altered or corrupt’). From this statement there came into use the term “Textus Receptus” (“Received Text”), which is still applied to the Stephanus third edition of 1550 and the Elzevir second edition of 1633”³⁷

Editor unknown: the Elzevirs were only the printers…³⁸

The text of this edition was copied from Beza’s text, except in about fifty places…

Beza himself closely followed Stephens: and Stephens (namely in his third and chief edition) copied solely from the fifth edition of Erasmus, except in the Revelation, where he followed sometimes Erasmus, sometimes the Complutensian edition…

Elzevir editions:

1st 1624 printed in Leyden

2nd 1633 printed in Leyden

Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus

AKA Textus Receptus, but see Stephanus 1550

3rd 1641 printed in Leyden

4th 1656 printed in Amsterdam

5th 1662 printed in Amsterdam

6th 1670 printed in Amsterdam

7th 1678 printed in Amsterdam

First to have the text divided into separate verse³⁹ (my italics)

Later editions

The first printed editions of the Bible (16th century) forced scholars to outline their principles of textual criticism. The first texts to be printed reflected the manuscripts then in greatest abundance and most readily available to the editor. Dominance of the Textus Receptus as the standard text of the Greek New Testament for the next 300 years overshadowed earlier and more valuable texts.⁴⁰

Soon after the printing of the Greek New Testament, the process of collecting and evaluating textual variants began…

John Mill (1645–1707)

Greek New Testament showing 30,000 variant readings⁴¹

A milestone came in 1707, when John Mill published his Novum Testamentum Graece, which printed the TR but included an apparatus indicating some 30 thousand places of variation among the hundred or so Greek manuscripts, early Versions, and Patristic quotations that he had examined. The publication sparked immediate and widespread controversy, especially among those concerned about divine authority residing in a text which was evidently no longer available.⁴²

H Kainh Diaqhkh. Novum Testamentum Graecum, cum lectionibus variantibus MSS. exemplarium versionum, editionum SS. Patrum et Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, et in easdem notis. Studio et labore Joannis Milli, S. T. P. Oxonii, e Theatro Sheldoniano. 1707. folio.⁴³

…text is that of Stephanus 1550…⁴⁴

Johann Albrect Bengel (1687–1752)

(John Albert Bengel, or Bengelius) Arrived at the insight that witnesses should be ‘weighed’ instead of being simply counted… number of MSS an insufficient basis for confident decision…⁴⁵

H Kainh Diaqhkh. Novum Testamentum Graecum. Edente Jo. Alberto Bengelio. 4to. Tubingae, 1734, 4to. 1763, 4to.⁴⁶

…text not formed on any particular edition…⁴⁷

M. B. Riddle, in his introduction to St. Augustine’s The harmony of the Gospel, calls Bengel “the pioneer of modern textual criticism of the New Testament”.⁴⁸ Charles Spurgeon calls him “the pioneer of true Biblical criticism”.⁴⁹ Dabney calls him “right-minded” and “pious”.⁵⁰

To Bengel is attributed the rule that the harder reading is to be preferred over the easier.⁵¹

• Spurgeon: “His principles of interpretation stated in his “Essay on the Right Way of Handling Divine Subjects”, are such as will make the lover of God’s word feel safe in his hands:
• “Put nothing into the Scriptures, but draw everything from them, and suffer nothing to remain hidden, that is really in them.”
• “Though each inspired writer has his own manner and style, one and the same Spirit breathes through all, one grand idea pervades all.”
• “Every divine communication carries (like the diamond) its own light with it, thus showing whence it comes; no touchstone is required to discriminate it.”
• “The true commentator will fasten his primary attention on the letter (literal meaning), but never forget that the Spirit must equally accompany him; at the same time we must never devise a more spiritual meaning for Scripture passages than the Holy Spirit intended.”

“The historical matters of Scripture, both narrative and prophecy, constitute as it were the bones of its system, whereas the spiritual matters are as its muscles, blood vessels, and nerves. As the bones are necessary to the human system, so Scripture must have its historical matters. The expositor who nullifies the historical ground work of Scripture for the sake of finding only spiritual truths everywhere, brings death on all correct interpretations. Those expositions are the safest which keep closest to the text.”

We know the perplexities of the excellent Bengel on this question; and we know that these led, first, to his laborious researches on the sacred text, and, next, to his pious wonder and gratitude at the preservation of that text. Of what use, one might have said, is the assurance that the original text was dictated by God eighteen hundred years ago, if I have no longer the certainty that the manuscripts of our libraries still present it to me in its purity, and if it be true (as we are assured) that the various readings of these rolls are at least thirty thousand in number?⁵²

 

Johann Jakob Wettstein (1693–1754)

Produced a 2-vol. Greek New Testament (1751–52)… contained a massive number of variants… provided the system of mss classification still in use today…⁵³

H Kainh Diaqhkh. Novum Testamentum Graecum editionis receptae, cumm lectionibus variantibus Codicum MSS. editionum aliarum, versionum et patrum, necnon commentario pleniore ex scriptoribus veteribus, Hebraeis, Graecis, et Latinis, historiam et vim verborum illustrante. Opera et studio Joannis Jacobi Wetstenii. Amstelaedami, 1751, 1752, 2 vols. folio.⁵⁴

The text is copied from the Elzevir editions, and the verses are numbered in the margin; and the various readings, with their authorities (containing a million of quotations), are placed beneath the text.⁵⁵

Johann Semler (1725-91)

[semler] …is usually called the father of modern biblical criticism. Semler severed the Word of God from Scripture. Scripture became the Word of God, he said, only when and insofar as it speaks to the subjective needs of man; only then could one speak of inspiration. Semler was a thorough rationalist: he denied miracles and predictive prophecy and contended that all theologies were mere human attempts to find truth. Such tenets were, according to Semler, a necessary preunderstanding for the correct approach to the Scriptures: the interpreter must be liberated from the old theory that Scripture’s authority is God’s authority before he can study it critically like other books. Semler was followed by Vatke (a Hegelian), Baur, Kuenen, Eichhorn, De Wette, Strauss, Graf and others. All were heavily influenced by the new historical criticism and convinced that Scripture, like all other books, must be studied according to its canons. All entertained theories toward the Bible which made of it something less than God’s Word and revelation. All ended in the same theological blind alley, skepticism.⁵⁶

In the latter part of the last century, Semler led off in what was then the new school of rationalism, explaining away everything in the sacred records which transcended human conception. To-day, while there are plenty in Germany who hold to his skeptical results, none follow or believe in his criticism. He was first professor of theology in, and at last head of, the divinity school of Halle.⁵⁷

Semler gave the first impulsion to what he called the liberal interpretation of the Scriptures; he rejected all inspiration, denied all prophecy, and treated all miracle as allegory and exaggeration.⁵⁸

Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812)

Carefully analysed the processes employed in making decisions among variant readings, arriving at a set of 15 rules to be followed… produced a Greek New Testament that abandoned the Textus Receptus in many places…⁵⁹

(See Horne for various editions of Griesbach.)

Gaussen states that Griesbach “consulted three hundred and thirty-five manuscripts for the Gospels alone”.⁶⁰

Karl Lachmann (1793–1851)

Smith gives Lachmann as beginning the third period of New Testament TC.⁶¹

First recognised scholar to make a complete break with the Textus Receptus, creating a complete text on the basis of recognised principles and rules…⁶²

Constantin von Tischendorf (1815–1874)

Searched for MSS… discovered Codex Sinaiticus… produced eight major editions of the Gk New Testament…⁶³

Scholz

Smith gives Scholz as closing the second period of New Testament TC.⁶⁴

Gaussen states that Scholz researched “six hundred and seventy-four manuscripts for the Gospels, his two hundred for the Acts, his two hundred and fifty-six for the Epistles of Paul, his ninety-three for the Apocalypse, (without reckoning his fifty-three Lectionaria)…”⁶⁵

J. M. A. Scholz, who in 1830-6 published a catalogue of New Testament manuscripts which included 26 uncials and 469 minuscules of the Gospels, 8 uncials and 192 minuscules of the Acts and Catholic Epistles, 9 uncials and 246 minuscules of the Pauline Epistles, and 3 uncials and 88 minuscules of the Apocalypse, besides 239 lectionaries, or collections of lessons for reading in church. Scholz’s object was not to collate manuscripts, but to catalogue them, so that others might know what materials were in existence for them to work on; and his list, for all its defects, provided the basis on which the list has since been kept up, until now the total runs into the neighbourhood of five thousand.⁶⁶

Gaussen

…as respects the New Testament, the no less gigantic investigations of Mill, Bengel, Wetstein, and Griesbach (who consulted three hundred and thirty-five manuscripts for the Gospels alone); the latest researches of Nolan, Matthæi, Lawrence, and Hug; above all, those of Scholz (with his six hundred and seventy-four manuscripts for the Gospels, his two hundred for the Acts, his two hundred and fifty-six for the Epistles of Paul, his ninety-three for the Apocalypse, (without reckoning his fifty-three Lectionaria): all these vast labours have so convincingly established the astonishing preservation of that text, copied nevertheless so many thousands of times (in Hebrew during thirty-three centuries, and in Greek during eighteen hundred years), that the hopes of the enemies of religion, in this quarter, have been subverted, and as Michaelis has said, “They have ceased henceforth to look for any thing from those critical researches which they at first so warmly recommended, because they expected discoveries from them that have never been made.”⁶⁷

B F Westcott & F J A Hort

The crux of the controversy layy in the testimony of the ancient Fathers. Hort’s contention, which was the corner-stone of his theory, was that readings characteristic of the Received Text are never found in the quotations of Christian writers prior to about A. D. 350. … This argument is in fact decisive; and no subsequent discovery of new witnesses, and no further examination of the old, has invalidated it.⁶⁸

Summary

“The TR is not a “bad” or misleading text, either theologically or practically. Technically, however, it is far from the original text. Yet three centuries were to pass before scholars won the struggle to replace this hastily assembled text with a text which gave evidence of being closer to the NT autographs.”⁶⁹

Bibliography

Greenlee

Bobrick, Benson. The making of the English Bible. London: Phoenix (An imprint of Orion Books Ltd), 2001

Metzger, Bruce M. The text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption, and restoration. New York/Oxford: OUP, 1992

Elwell, Walter A. (Ed.). Marshall Pickering Encyclopedia of the Bible. London: Marshall Morgan and Scott, 1988

Accordance modules:

Calvin’s Commentaries (complete) by John Calvin. Public Domain. Electronic text downloaded from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library: http://ccel.wheaton.edu. Formatted and hypertexted by OakTree Software, Inc. Version 1.6

 

¹ Frederic G Kenyon, The story of the Bible, p.2

² Frederic G Kenyon, The story of the Bible, p.3

³ Frederic G Kenyon, The story of the Bible, p.4

⁴ “New Testament”, Smith’s Bible Dictionary. William Smith, 1884. Accordance module.

⁵ Frederic G. Kenyon, Recent developments in the textual criticism of the Greek Bible (1933). pp.2–4.

⁶ Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, volume 1, §22. [CCEL version?]

⁷ Archibald Alexander, The Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, or The Bible Complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions. CCEL PDF document, p.65

⁸ Archibald Alexander, The Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, or The Bible Complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions. CCEL PDF document, p.127 (not the printed page number but the actual page number)

⁹ Clarke’s commentary on Revelation 12:4

¹⁰ “Canonical Formation of the New Testament”, in Dictionary of New Testament Background (IVP), Accordance module

¹¹ Frederic G Kenyon, The story of the Bible, pp.6-7

¹² Greenlee, page ??

¹³ Wikipedia, “Fall of Constantinople”, 20060402

¹⁴ Greenlee

¹⁵ Wikipedia, “Johannes Gutenberg”, 20060402

¹⁶ Metzger, p.95

¹⁷ Metzger, pp.95-96

¹⁸ Greenlee

¹⁹ Wikipedia, “Cardinal de Cisneros”

²⁰ Metzger, p.96

²¹ Metzger, p.96 footnote 3

²² Metzger, pp.96-97

²³ Greenlee

²⁴ Wikipedia, “Johann Froben” 20060405

²⁵ King, John, “Translator’s preaface” in Calvin’s commentary on Genesis, Accordance module.

²⁶ Greenlee

²⁷ Metzger, pp. 98–99

²⁸ Greenlee

²⁹ Bobrick, p. 84

³⁰ Metzger, pp. 99–100

³¹ Metzger, p. 100

³² Metzger, p. 100

³³ Greenlee

³⁴ Greenlee

³⁵ Horne, vol. 2, p.136

³⁵ Horne, vol. 2 p.136

³⁷ Greenlee pp.64-65

³⁸ Horne, vol. 2 p.136

³⁹ Horne, vol. 2 p.136

⁴⁰ MPEB, vol. 1, p.319

⁴¹ MPEB, vol. 1, p.319

⁴² “Text of the New Testament” Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Accordance module

⁴³ Horne, vol. 2, p.138

⁴⁴ Horne, vol. 2, p.138

⁴⁵ MPEB, vol. 1, pp.319–320

⁴⁶ Horne, vol. 2, p.139

⁴⁷ Horne, vol. 2, p.139

⁴⁸ Philip Schaff (ed), The Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers First Series, Volume 6. AGES library PDF document

⁴⁹ C. H. Spurgeon, Commenting and Commentaries

⁵⁰ R. L. Dabney, The Doctrinal Various Readings Of The New Testament Greek. AGES library PDF document, p.2

⁵¹ R. L. Dabney, The Doctrinal Various Readings Of The New Testament Greek. AGES library PDF document

⁵² Gaussen, Theopneustia. AGES library PDF document, p.119

⁵³ MPEB, vol. 1, p.320

⁵⁴ Horne, vol. 2, p.139

⁵⁵ Horne, vol. 2, p.140. Italics as in original text. AJKS note: Hard to believe!

⁵⁶ Robert D. Preus, “The nature of the Bible” in Carl Henry, Christian faith and modern theology. AGES library PDF document, p.124

⁵⁷ Dabney, The Influence Of The German University System On Theological Literature. AGES library PDF document, p.8

⁵⁸ Gaussen, Theopneustia. AGES library PDF document, p.104

⁵⁹ MPEB, vol. 1, p.320

⁶⁰ Gaussen, Theopneustia. AGES library PDF document, p.120

⁶¹ “New Testament”, Smith’s Bible Dictionary. William Smith, 1884. Accordance module.

⁶² MPEB, vol. 1, p.320

⁶³ MPEB, vol. 1, p.320

⁶⁴ “New Testament”, Smith’s Bible Dictionary. William Smith, 1884. Accordance module.

⁶⁵ Gaussen, Theopneustia. AGES library PDF document, p.120

⁶⁶ Kenyon, The story of the Bible, chapter 6, pp.62–63

⁶⁷ Gaussen, Theopneustia. AGES library PDF document, p.120

⁶⁸ Frederic G. Kenyon, Recent developments in the textual criticism of the Greek Bible (1933). p.8.

⁶⁹ Greenlee, p.65

Edited July 28, 2018 by Alistair

[Julia Falling]

Alistair –  Thank you for this.  Since you have posted it, may I copy and convert to a PDF I can read when my brain isn't so tired?  

 

I remember James White saying in a talk he gave that there are 105 different versions of the TR – I'll take his word for it.  There are a few versions that are "standards" or representative versions, right? – the 1550 Stephanus, Oxford 1873, and the one sold by the Trinitarian Bible Society (Scrivener's version, I think?).  The Scrivener version is iffy, IMO, since it's pretty much backwards, choosing the Greek based on an English version, even when there is not a single Greek manuscript on the planet that supports a given reading.  Nevertheless, it's good to have because there are so many KJV fans out there.

 

I look forward to reading your post this week.  Thank you!

 

I would still like to have some feedback from our Accordance folks explaining why two Greek TRs, with nearly identical descriptions, don't have identical words in identical order.  Puzzling.

 

I do have a copy of the Oxford TR used by the CNTTS sent to me by Dr. Bill Warren.  No breathing marks, accents, punctuation, chapters, or verses.  I'm in the process of breaking down the book of Acts.  I'm going to try to import it as a user Bible.  It may take me a couple of years.