A Study by
GARY RAY BRANSCOME
Although all of our great Reformation Bibles were translated from the
Greek text that is known today as the “Textus Receptus,” in recent years that text has fallen out
of favor with many in the field of textual research. The purpose of this essay
is to examine some of the assumptions that led to that change.
One reason for the change has to do with the
classification of New Testament manuscripts into “text types”. In
this case the problem is not with the classification itself, but with the fact
that the “text types” are treated as equal, when the evidence does
not warrant such treatment. For example, if all manuscripts were evaluated
independently, we would find that, even though there are a few oddball
manuscripts, the great majority of all manuscripts are in agreement. However,
by classifying the few oddball manuscripts as one “text type,”
while classifying the great majority of all manuscripts as another text type,
the oddball manuscripts wind up being treated as if their testimony carried
just as much weight as all of the rest of the manuscripts.
Because of this classification,
New Testament manuscripts are now grouped into three primary types Byzantine,
Alexandrian, and Western.
The Byzantine text is the
text that was in continual use by the Greek Orthodox Church, from the fourth
century (or earlier) to the end of the nineteenth century. Most of the manuscripts
are Byzantine, and there is very little variation between them. Although the Textus Receptus contains a few
peculiar readings that can be traced to the Latin, it is essentially a
Byzantine text.
In contrast, the Alexandrian text
consists of a few manuscripts that omit a number of words and phrases found in
the Byzantine text. However, because the two primary representatives of the
Alexandrian text (Aleph and “B”) differ from each other in more
than three thousand places, we are justified in asking if the Alexandrian text
actually constitutes a valid “text type”.
Finally, the Western text
consists of a few manuscripts that include words and phrases not found in
Byzantine or Alexandrian texts. While it is generally agreed, that the words
and phrases peculiar to the Western text are not representative of the
original, some of the least esteemed “Western” manuscripts omit
words and phrases that are also omitted by Alexandrian manuscripts.
To put it briefly, far from representing distinct
categories, these “text types” consist of the Byzantine text and a
grouping of other texts on the basis of how they differ from it. However, there
are also a number of manuscripts (some very old) that do not consistently
follow the readings of any one “text type”.
Through the influence of Count Tischendorf, B.F. Westcott, F.J.A.
Hort, and others the Alexandrian text now enjoys wide
acceptance. However, that acceptance rests on a number of highly questionable
assumptions.
For example: In the absence of early Byzantine
manuscripts, it was simply assumed that the longer Byzantine readings were
inserted into the text at a later date. Nevertheless, that assumption flies in
the face of the evidence for less than ten percent of those “longer
Byzantine readings” can actually be characterized as late. However,
whenever one of the early Christian writers quotes a Byzantine reading,
advocates of the Alexandrian text simply assume (without evidence) that the
writer added words to the text, and that some scribe later added those words to
the Bible. Nevertheless, since there is not one concrete example of that ever happening, that assumption is mythology, not science.
Another myth consists of the
claim that once those “longer readings” had been added to various
Bible manuscripts, those manuscripts were gathered together and edited to
produce the Byzantine text. Not only is there not one scrap of evidence that
such editing ever took place, but difficulties in travel and communication
would have made such a project impossible to carry out without being noticed by
history. Not only did the members of one eastern congregation nearly riot when
a reader replaced the word “gourd” (in the story of Jonah) with
“fig tree,” but we have a record of that controversy, and any
attempt to edit the Bible would have generated far more controversy.
A third assumption claims that addition to the text was more
likely to take place than omission. However, that claim assumes that copyists
had no qualms about adding to the text, and that is simply not true. The same
scribes that were trained to avoid omission were also trained to avoid
addition. Furthermore, it is anti-intellectual to assert that the longer
readings were added to the Byzantine text, when that is simply assumed to be
true without any concrete evidence.
Although
the name “Textus Receptus”
was not coined until the middle of the seventeenth century, that name came to
represent the Greek text used by Martin Luther, William Tyndale,
and other Reformation-era translators. That text is essentially a Byzantine
text, even though there are a few places where it differs from other Byzantine
manuscripts.
One widely publicized difference stems from the fact that when
Erasmus published his first edition of the Greek New Testament (1516), he wound
up translating the last six verses of Revelation into Greek, because none of
his Greek manuscripts contained those verses. Nevertheless, because subsequent
editions of the Receptus corrected that mistake,
those who talk about it as if it were a distinctive characteristic of the Textus Receptus are not being
honest.
Another reading peculiar to Receptus consists of the words, “And he trembling and
astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?”(Acts
9:6). Although those words do not appear in most Greek texts, because
Paul’s question is repeated in Acts
A third reading peculiar to the Receptus
consists of the words, “For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there
are three that bear witness in earth” (1John 5:7-8). While that
statement, (known as the “Comma Johanneum”)
is found in only four Byzantine manuscripts, it is included in Old Latin Bible
manuscripts dating back to the fifth century, and in Vulgate manuscripts dating
back to the eighth century. It was also quoted by Cyprian in the third century
(200-258AD), for he said, “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are
one,’ and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit, ‘and these three are one’” (The Treatises of
Cyprian 1:1:6). Furthermore, without those words the gender endings of the
Greek words in the surrounding verses do not match. Therefore, even though the
manuscript support for this reading is weak, the evidence against it is far
from conclusive.
Those who assume
that science can answer every question about manuscripts need to wake up to the
fact that God’s ways are not man’s ways, and that God often does
things in a way that seems strange to our finite way of thinking (Romans
11:33). For example: To us, it might seem foolish think that any words spoken
by unbelieving Caiaphas were prophesy.
Yet the Bible tells us that Caiaphas
“prophesied,” even though he had murder in his heart, simply
because what He said about Jesus, “It is expedient for us, that one man
should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not” happened
to express a truth of God's Word (John 11:49-51, Revelation 19:10).
During the 1970s Professor Blume of Northwestern Lutheran Seminary was asked to
speak at a Pastor’s conference held at
So
now its been the habit to say when the Textus Receptus reads the same as these older texts
do… When the great letter Uncils
go one way, but the Textus Receptus and maybe one of the old
versions or some of the Papri
stand opposed to them, then we can say in this case though it is not like the
big letter Uncils the
Byzantine text has most probably preserved the original apostolic work. So I in
my teaching and in my writing make strong allowances for that. I will very
often disagree with the way Nestle or the United Bible Society text prints and
reads the text. And I will say that there is apparently no reason why we should
depart from the old received text. That’s saying something entirely
different from saying the old Received Text is the Divinely
inspired one. It is the historically correct one.
That’s what I say.”
Because the Textus Receptus is the text that
God chose to use when He restored the gospel to His church at the time of the
Reformation, I see the current attempt to discredit it as part of much larger
attack on the credibility of the Bible. What I have said should give you some
idea as to why I still have a high regard for the Textus
Receptus, and why I see no reason to replace it.