TR vs MT

The TR and MT represent distinct textual traditions, though they share Byzantine manuscript ancestry. The King James Version and New King James Version are based on the Textus Receptus, which is very similar to the Majority Text, but there are in fact hundreds of differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus.[1] More precisely, there are 1,838 differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus.[2]

The fundamental distinction lies in their origins. The Textus Receptus was compiled and edited by Erasmus in the 16th century using several Greek manuscripts which were eastern/Byzantine in nature, but Erasmus by no means had access to all of the Greek manuscripts, and the Textus Receptus is based on a very limited number of manuscripts, all of them eastern, and all of them dating to around the 12th century.[1] The Majority Text, by contrast, represents a broader scholarly reconstruction. While “Textus Receptus” is the name used for editions of the Greek New Testament that are derived specifically from Erasmus’ text, “majority text” is a name used for the Byzantine text-type in general, since the majority of extant New Testament manuscripts are of the Byzantine type.[3]

Regarding TR revisions: in reality one single Textus Receptus does not exist.[4] Early printed Greek texts include editions such as those of Erasmus 1516, the Complutensian Polyglot of 1514/1522, Colinaeus 1534, Stephens 1546, Beza 1565, and the Elzevir 1633.[5] Each introduced variations.

As for perfection: Neither the TR nor MT claims to be perfect like the original autographs. Verbal Plenary Preservation would require generation after generation of handwritten copies to be produced without error of any kind from the original autographs, producing the later manuscripts known as the “Majority Text,” from which the TR was created, with the conclusion that the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text are not only faithful, inerrant, and identical replicas of the original autographs.[6] However, the underlying problem with the doctrine of VPP is its false presupposition that God’s inspiration of Scripture at a particular point in human history also requires His divine preservation of every jot and tittle ever written down by anyone who ever sought to do the work of a scribe.[6]

[1] Got Questions Ministries, Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2002–2013). [See here, here, here.]
[2] Daniel B. Wallace, “Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text,” Bibliotheca Sacra (1989), 276.
[3] Elliot Ritzema and S. Michael Kraeger, “Textus Receptus,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016). [See here.]
[4] Johannes Kovar, “The Textus Receptus and Modern Bible Translations,” in Perplexing Doctrinal Questions Answered (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2020). [See here.]
[5] Scrivener’s Textus Receptus (1894): With Morphology (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2002). [See here.]
[6] Got Questions Ministries, Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2014–2021). [See here, here.]