The Greek Textus Receptus

God Preserves His Word

EDITORIAL

LAST ISSUE we ran an article on the Hebrew Masoretic Text and its preservation. This article, hopefully, will follow on from the last and explain the reasons why we believe in the Greek Received Text.

I must acknowledge that like Newton I have "stood on the houlders" of better and more educated people than myself. I have used and recommend the articles from the Trinitarian Bible Society concerning these issues. I feel they explain the whole matter with a clarity and godliness lacking in much Christian writings these days. I shall begin my consideration of these matters with a description of the main histories and controversies as well as describing any other brief points.

What is the Textus receptus?
What are the alternatives?
What has happened?

The church did NOT have the New Testament until a while after Christ's death and resurrection. Instead Paul, Peter, James and the company relied on the Hebrew Bible.
As the need arose an apostle or a friend (e.g. Mark) would write a letter to a church, a history of events or a book of prophecy.
Paul wrote the book of Galatians to respond to Judaising elements in the assembly in Galatia.
The original copies are what we would call the AUTOGRAPHS. None of these has survived the passage of time (at least to our knowledge).
These texts would have been copied and then sent on for others to read and so on. These copies are what we translate our Bibles from.
The Roman Church translated the Bible into Latin (Jerome, The Vulgate) and for many years this was the preferred text for study.
The fall of Constantinople changed this partially as the Greek New Testament was again available for study. The Reformation with the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers changed further the view of New Testament Studies.

The texts used by the reformers and Christians up to the recent past was part of what is known as the Byzantine family of manuscripts. In Latin the text became known as the Textus Receptus. The TR (as we shall call it) is a group of texts compiled by Erasmus, the Dutch humanist and scholar, Stephanus and various others. In the UK, FA Scrivener in the late 19th century compiled a new version which is in use today by the TBS. This situation continued until the arrival of two signi-ficant discoveries in the 19th century.

Tischendorf, the German textual critic and Greek expert, found a text of the New Testament in a monastry in Sinai. Called Codex Sinaiticus, it was found in the waste paper bin!
Also the Vatican re-leased the text we now know as Codex Vaticanus.
These two did not agree with the Byzantine texts in many significant areas.

The textual critics rushed to develop new texts based on these two manuscripts.

	The result is what is now known as the Critical Text.

To summarise this section, we have two families of NT manuscripts: Critical (aka Neutral) and Byzantine. There are other theories including the existence of a Caesarean Text, however they are at present not important to the purpose of this article.

Which is best?

As with so much in life this question is not so easy to answer. The Critical manuscripts are based on the older texts.

However we must also consider that the Byzantine text is more attested to in the Church Fathers (a group of people up to approx 4th cent.). It is said that the Church Fathers in their writings included practically all the New Testament minus a handful of verses.
If we lost all Greek manuscripts of the NT we could in all probability build it up from the Church Fathers. Their writings overwhelmingly favour the Byzantine readings.
Let us consider Mark 16:9-20.
John Burgon, the Anglican Dean of Chicester, wrote most convincingly that these verses are part of Scripture and we acknowledge the debt owed by all of us to him for this.
If the Ancient writers used these verses then we would have to admit that there is a high possibility that they are part of the Bible. If they were also used in ancient translations then we would have to agree that the likelihood of them being in the Bible is very high indeed.
As they were not in Vaticanus or Sinaiticus modern scholar-ship denies their inspiration and if you look in your English Bible, you will see a note saying so in more polite language (usually "the oldest and best manuscripts do not contain these verses").
So is there any ancient evidence for this passage?

First: the versions translated into any other languages

The NT was translated into many different versions and tongues very early on, in fact well before Sinai-ticus or Vaticanus. Thus we can glimpse what the NT in Greek would have been like. IN ALL THESE TRANSLATIONS (Peshitta 2nd cent., Curetonian 3rd cent., Philoxenian 5th cent—all Syriac, Old 2nd cent, Jerome 4th cent-Latin, Gothic 4th cent, Egyptian 4/5th cent, Thebaic 3rd cent) Mark 16:9-20 is present.

Second: the ancient writings

If the Christians included these verses then we must wonder as to the accuracy of the Critical readings. Let me just detail some of the writings that include parts of the disputed section.

Justin Martyr 151 AD quotes the last verse; Irenaeus quotes and comments on v19, 180 AD; Hippolytus quotes verses 17-18 AD190-227; Vincentius also 17-18 AD256; Eusebius AD325; Ambrose of Milan AD374-97quotes verse 15; (AD dates mean date of writing).

It appears likely that the Greek New Testament of the first few centuries did contain these verses.This casts doubt on the accuracy of the Critical text.

The Second passage is 1 John 5:7-8. These verses are probably the best and most explicit Trinitarian statement in scripture. Modern day "Evangelical" Christian Scholars such as John RW Stott, Rector Emeritus of All Souls Lang-ham Place, deny the place in scripture of this passage.
Again we have evidence for its inclusion. It is quoted by two Spanish bishops in the 4th century as scripture. It is quoted in Latin by Cyprian 250AD and Cassiodorus 480-570 AD.
These and other mentions tend to confirm the TR postion and give support to it as the most probable reading.

The Critical Text omits or alters many verses of which these are just a few:

Luke 2:33 changes "And Joseph and his (Jesus) mother" to "and his father and mother"

Rom 14:10 changes "Christ" to "God"

1 Tim 3:16 changes "God" to "He"

All of these verses seem to go with the general aim of the alterations.
To deny the deity of Christ!

If we were to read a history of the church from a Catholic point of view we would see Luther not painted as a hero but as a lazy faithless monk.
We would pick up on the point of view very quickly as Calvin, John Knox and Henry VIII are all castigated.
We would be more suspicious as we note the adoration of Mary and the saints.
As we see the paeans of praise to John Henry Newman and Ronald Knox we would definitely start to wonder as to the truth of the docu-ment! We would pick up on its bias and ignore it.
The Critical text and others like it are all part of the Alexandrian family which tend towards a unitarian (non-trinitarian) slant.
Alexandria in Egypt was the home of many heretics as well as many gnostic movements.
Thus we would do well to be wary of these texts.

The Critical texts are also in sharp divergence not only with the TR but also with each other.
Some salient facts include: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus disagree with each other approximately 3000 times in the Gospels alone!

The Critical text lists in Mark 1:2 Isaiah as the author of the book of Malachi.(written in 1999)
Further study (2004) shows that this more correct:
The Critical text states in Mark 1:2 "it is written in Isaiah the prophet" Malachi is given as an additional reference in the Notes. Read the background study HERE...

"Jesus" is omitted 70 times in the Critical Text. "Christ" is omitted 29 times.

Also we do not know how many copies the two MSS are away from the autographs. I borrow from GW Anderson this idea:

Imagine it is 3000AD. A team of Bible experts locate an English Bible dating from the 1970's. It becomes the oldest Bible around by far.
The critics use it to translate into the new languages (say Eurogerman) all the evidence points to the fact we must accept this as the most accurate until we find it is the New World translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Consider then the fact that it is possible that the two MSS, despite being the oldest, were merely biased and inaccurate mutilations of the true text.
The situation is the same as above. It is possible.

We must also consider the idea of preservation of the text by God Himself.

God Preserves his Word

The Christian has to ask fundamentally, How can we be sure? Is it possible that the scholars are right?

The problem is that, although the evidence does lead to the conclusion that the TR is the best and most accurate translation, it cannot be proven by textual basis alone.
The textual critics are wrong in their assumptions.
The Bible is a supernatural book, a book of a super-natural God.
He says in His Word "the scripture cannot be broken" John 10:35 but most strongly in 1 Peter 1:23-25.

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth and the flower therof falleth away, But the Word of the Lord endureth for ever..." (capitals added -Ed)

We can only be sure in God and His Word. He says (not me) it is incorruptible, it lives and abides for ever. The Church must then accept that we have His Word and always have had it. Since the first word of Genesis to the last day.
If we accept the Critical Text then we accept that the Church did not have the true Bible until the 19th century and men of God such as Polycarp, Calvin, Simons, even the Puritans such as Baxter and his ilk, were not only deceived in that respect but also in the whole truth because if God did not preserve His Word then He is a liar and the faith of Christianity is a total sham and waste of our time.
Are we seriously going to entertain that prospect?
Has the church been deceived by an evil and dishonest God? The Bible says not one jot or tittle shall be destroyed until ALL be fulfilled.
Critical Theory says the Bible has lost and gained bits all throughout the first few centuries.
The Bible says it is the word of God. Critical Theory says it is a human book like any other, uninspired but perhaps inspiring at best.

To Summarise

The TR is backed up by the evidence of history, versions, ancient writers as well as by internal consistency. It agrees well with each variant of the text. Most of the Greek manuscripts are of that type. The earliest translations seem to use the TR—not the Critical Text. Most early church writers seem to quote from a Textus Receptus New Testament. The LORD has seen fit to give the Textus Receptus from nigh on the start. It is not polluted by unbelieving scholars or theories.
It is truly the Text God has preserved all through the ages, as He said He would, for His church. It is the only text to be preserved (by God) and used by the church all through the ages.
Therefore I commend it to you my brethren and suggest that we are not being unnecessarily divisive in saying the Textus Receptus is the Text we believe in to the exclusion of the Greek Critical Text.
Finally I must acknowledge my debt to the writings of GW and DE Anderson of The Trintarian Bible Society who helpfully provided much of the material used here.
I recommend writing to the TBS for their brochures and letters on these topics.

God Bless—Dept. Ed

Sources: TBS "The Greek New Testament", "Textual Key to the New Testament", "God was Manifest in the Flesh" (1 Tim 3:16), "Why 1 John 5:7-8 is in the Bible", "The Authenticity of the last Twelve verses of the Gospel According to Mark" And other pamphlets generally.

Much of the information in this article has been taken from several pamphlets produced by the Trinitarian Bible Society. For introductory literature and more details, please write to: Trinitarian Bible Society, Tyndale House, Dorset Road
London, SW19 3NN, UK

[ TOP ]

Appeared in Issue 6 -- June 1999
"...contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" -- Jude v3