Why we reject The Textus Receptus (TR)

The Textus Receptus (TR), which served as the primary Greek text for the New Testament of the King James Version (KJV), has some significant limitations that modern scholars recognize. Here are key reasons why the TR is not considered a perfect representation of the original New Testament text:

1. Limited Manuscript Sources

The TR was based on a small number of late Byzantine Greek manuscripts available to Erasmus when he compiled it in the early 16th century. Erasmus primarily relied on six to eight Greek manuscripts from the 12th to 15th centuries, which do not represent the earliest or most diverse witnesses of the New Testament text.

Today, scholars have access to thousands of Greek manuscripts, including much earlier papyri from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, which were unavailable to Erasmus. These older manuscripts often differ from the later Byzantine manuscripts, revealing variations and sometimes shorter or different readings.

2. Rushed Compilation and Printing Errors

Erasmus produced the first edition of the TR under significant time pressure. It was printed quickly in 1516, and Erasmus later acknowledged that he hadn’t been able to fully review it for errors. This haste led to typographical and transcription errors that were carried over in later editions.

Even after Erasmus’ initial compilation, later editors like Stephanus and Beza made their own edits to the TR, sometimes introducing new errors or speculative changes to the text without access to a broader manuscript base.

3. Influence of the Latin Vulgate

Erasmus sometimes relied on the Latin Vulgate when Greek manuscript readings were missing or unclear. For example, certain passages in the TR (like the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7–8) are based on Latin sources rather than Greek manuscripts, since Erasmus lacked any Greek manuscripts containing this phrase. Under pressure to include this passage, he eventually added it in a later edition based on a single Greek manuscript likely translated from Latin.

This Latin influence means the TR sometimes reflects Latin readings not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts, reducing its accuracy as a purely Greek New Testament text.

4. Byzantine Text-Only Focus

The TR is almost exclusively a Byzantine text-type, which became the standard Greek text in the Eastern Orthodox Church during the Middle Ages. However, older manuscript discoveries (like the Alexandrian texts in the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) have shown that the Byzantine text is not always the most accurate reflection of the original writings.

Textual criticism suggests that the Alexandrian text-type, generally shorter and more succinct, often represents the earliest form of the text, while the Byzantine text contains expansions and harmonizations. Since the TR is solely based on the Byzantine text, it sometimes includes readings that are considered secondary or later developments in the manuscript tradition.

5. Later Additions and Harmonizations

The TR includes several later additions that do not appear in the earliest and best manuscripts. For example:

The Longer Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20): This passage is present in the TR but absent from the earliest manuscripts.

The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11): This story of the woman caught in adultery is also a later addition and not found in the oldest manuscripts of John.

These passages are now recognized by most scholars as later additions to the New Testament text, likely added to harmonize or expand the narrative. The inclusion of these passages in the TR reflects its reliance on later manuscripts rather than the earliest available evidence.

6. Modern Advances in Textual Criticism

Textual criticism has advanced significantly since Erasmus' time. Today, scholars use comprehensive techniques to evaluate manuscripts, considering factors like scribal habits, regional text types, and textual families. This process allows a more accurate reconstruction of the earliest text, moving beyond the constraints of the TR’s small manuscript base and limited methodology.

The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28) and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (UBS5), which incorporate thousands of manuscripts, represent a more refined and reliable Greek text based on advanced textual criticism.

7. Influence on Translations and Theological Issues

The TR has influenced traditional translations like the KJV, but its differences from the earliest manuscripts mean it contains interpretative and theological variants that may not align with the original text. This can affect theological understanding and interpretation, especially when the TR includes readings that diverge from early manuscript evidence.

For example, variants in the TR, like those in Matthew 6:13 ("For thine is the kingdom...") and Acts 8:37 (Philip's confession of faith), are not found in the earliest manuscripts and may reflect later liturgical additions.

In summary, the Textus Receptus represents a valuable step in the history of biblical scholarship but is limited by its reliance on late Byzantine manuscripts, Latin influences, and lack of access to the earliest Greek manuscripts. We pray for a more accurate and scholarly reconstruction of the New Testament text based on a comprehensive array of early evidence. 

Verbal Plenary Preservation is a deception.

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." (Matthew 24:24)

Matthew 24:24 warns of false Christs and false prophets who will try to deceive even the elect, if possible. Some proponents of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) may unintentionally lead people astray by insisting on a doctrine that claims absolute perfection of a specific text, the Textus Receptus, often underlying the KJV. Such a stance can create unnecessary divisions and distract from the core message of the Gospel.

This insistence on a "perfect" Bible can sow discord and confusion within the church, echoing the warning in Matthew 24:24 about deception. Instead of focusing on the supposed perfection of a single manuscript tradition, it's more productive to recognize the robust and reliable nature of the broader manuscript evidence that collectively preserves God's Word.

Unity and the core truths of Christianity should be our focus, rather than divisive claims that risk misleading believers. Important to keep our eyes on the bigger picture, don’t you think?

We reject the Textus Receptus (TR) and its subsequent editions until further notice due to the incorrect teaching of Verbal Plenary Preservation and attacks by its proponents.