Ever since Westcott & Hort radically changed the New Testament Greek text and applied it to the English Revised Version (1881) there has been a battle between Bible versions and their underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. Given the fact that the Bible is the Word of God for millions of Christians, we must be fully persuaded that the Bibles we use have not been tampered with, and are indeed faithful word-for-word translations from the original languages (as much as possible in producing a translation). So Christians owe it to themselves to ask some honest questions about this matter and receive honest answers, not propaganda. A couple of critical questions which Christians should ask are:
1. Does the Received Text (TR for Textus Receptus) of the New Testament truly represent the autographs (original inspired manuscripts)?
2. Were the printed editions of the Greek text during the Reformation basically all the same and did they represent the Received Text?
1. Does the Received Text of the New Testament truly represent the autographs?
The short answer is Yes”. Both the rationalistic critics who promoted a new critical text in the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century, and the conservative textual scholars who opposed that text, agreed that the Received Text was the dominant text throughout the history of Christianity.
That the Traditional Text goes all the way back to the autographs was established by John William Burgon in his book (edited by Edward Miller) The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (1896), in which he proved through actual quotations in the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers (before 325 A.D.) that the Traditional Text dominated in a ratio of at least 3:1 in comparison to the Minority Text. He also noted that as time progressed, the Minority Text became less and less evident, so that from the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] century onwards, the Traditional Text became dominant.
The Received Text is very much the Traditional Text. Please note carefully that it was F. J. A. Hort (the enemy of the Received Text) who stated that :
“The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS. generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the fourth century” (as quoted by Burgon in The Revision Revised, 1883, p. 257). Thus Dean Burgon could say in response: “The one great fact which especially troubles him and his joint editor (as well it may) is the Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament Scriptures. Call this text Erasmian or Complutensian, the text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzivirs; call it the ‘Received’ or the Traditional Greek Text, or whatever other name you please; the fact remains, that a text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient copies, ancient Fathers, and ancient versions. This, at all events, is a point on which (happily) there exists entire conformity of opinion between Dr. Hort and ourselves. Our readers cannot have yet forgotten his virtual admission that beyond all question the Textus Receptus is the dominant Graeco-Syrian text of A.D. 350 to A.D. 400” (Ibid. p. 269).
According to objective manuscript evidence the Traditional Text is the Majority Text*, and it represents the original autographs. The Received Text may therefore be regarded as the standard of comparison for all manuscripts:
And what standard more reasonable and more convenient than the Text which, by the good providence of GOD, was universally employed throughout Europe for the first 300 years after the invention of printing? Being practically identical with the Text which... was in popular use at the end of three centuries from the date of the sacred autographs themselves; in other words, being more than 1500 years old [which was also thus confirmed by Bishop Ellicott, who was opposing Burgon]... The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ for the most part only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts. The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus... That pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any of them. [Burgon then addressed Bp. Ellicott] By your own showing therefore, the Textus Receptus is ‘at least’ 1550 years old. (The Revision Revised, pp. 386,390).
The big difference between the two groups was the W& H made a fanciful claim that the Received Text was a “recension” (hence a corruption) but the text of Codex Vaticanus was a “pure “ text and represented the autographs. This conclusion was based upon only ONE CRITERION – the age of the manuscripts. However, there are seven criteria which determine the value of any manuscript. On the other hand, the conservative scholars correctly stated that because the Received Text was the dominant text, it truly represented the autographs. Furthermore there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the text had been tampered with or that any “recension” had been secretly fabricated.
Thus Frederick H. A. Scrivener – who wrote the textbook on textual criticism and was the leading textual scholar of the day – condemned the fanciful theory of W& H, but was ignored by most of the scholars (who were already committed to W &H). Burgon quoted from Scrivener as follows (pp. iv,v):
The following is PREBENDARY SCRIVENER'S recently published estimate of the System on which DRS.WESTCOTT AND HORT have constructed their “Revised Greek Text of the New Testament” (1881).—That System, the Chairman of the Revising Body (BISHOP ELLICOTT) has entirely adopted (see below, pp. 391 to 397), and made the basis of his Defence of THE REVISERS and their “New Greek Text.”
(1.) “There is little hope for the stability of their imposing structure, if its foundations have been laid on the sandy ground of ingenious conjecture. And, since barely the smallest vestige of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the views of these accomplished Editors, their teaching must either be received as intuitively true, or dismissed from our consideration as precarious and even visionary.”
(2.) “DR. HORT'S System is entirely destitute of historical foundation.”
(3.) “We are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our strong conviction that the Hypothesis to whose proof he has devoted so many laborious years, is destitute not only of historical foundation, but of all probability, resulting from
the internal goodness of the Text which its adoption would force upon us.”
(4.) “ ‘We cannot doubt’ (says DR. HORT) ‘that S. Luke xxiii. 34 comes from an extraneous source.’ [Notes, p. 68.]—Nor can we, on our part, doubt,” (rejoins DR. SCRIVENER,) “that the System which entails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned.” SCRIVENER'S “Plain Introduction,” &c. [ed. 1883]: pp. 531,537, 542, 604.
The Trinitarian Bible Society, which has printed probably millions of Bibles (either of the King James or replicas of the King James in other languages) has taken an unequivocal stand on the Received Text based upon solid scholarship. Here is what they say:
The Greek Text: The Society uses the form of the Greek text of the New Testament known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text. This is the text which underlies the New Testament of the Authorised Version and the other Reformation translations. It is a faithful representation of the text which the church in different parts of the world has used for centuries. It is the result of the textual studies of conservative scholars during the years both before and after the Reformation, and represents for the most part over 5,000 available Greek manuscripts. The Society believes this text is superior to the texts used by the United Bible Societies and other Bible publishers, which texts have as their basis a relatively few seriously defective manuscripts from the 4th century and which have been compiled using 20th century rationalistic principles of scholarship.
1. Does the Received Text (TR for Textus Receptus) of the New Testament truly represent the autographs (original inspired manuscripts)?
2. Were the printed editions of the Greek text during the Reformation basically all the same and did they represent the Received Text?
1. Does the Received Text of the New Testament truly represent the autographs?
The short answer is Yes”. Both the rationalistic critics who promoted a new critical text in the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century, and the conservative textual scholars who opposed that text, agreed that the Received Text was the dominant text throughout the history of Christianity.
That the Traditional Text goes all the way back to the autographs was established by John William Burgon in his book (edited by Edward Miller) The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (1896), in which he proved through actual quotations in the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers (before 325 A.D.) that the Traditional Text dominated in a ratio of at least 3:1 in comparison to the Minority Text. He also noted that as time progressed, the Minority Text became less and less evident, so that from the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] century onwards, the Traditional Text became dominant.
The Received Text is very much the Traditional Text. Please note carefully that it was F. J. A. Hort (the enemy of the Received Text) who stated that :
“The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS. generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the fourth century” (as quoted by Burgon in The Revision Revised, 1883, p. 257). Thus Dean Burgon could say in response: “The one great fact which especially troubles him and his joint editor (as well it may) is the Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament Scriptures. Call this text Erasmian or Complutensian, the text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzivirs; call it the ‘Received’ or the Traditional Greek Text, or whatever other name you please; the fact remains, that a text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient copies, ancient Fathers, and ancient versions. This, at all events, is a point on which (happily) there exists entire conformity of opinion between Dr. Hort and ourselves. Our readers cannot have yet forgotten his virtual admission that beyond all question the Textus Receptus is the dominant Graeco-Syrian text of A.D. 350 to A.D. 400” (Ibid. p. 269).
According to objective manuscript evidence the Traditional Text is the Majority Text*, and it represents the original autographs. The Received Text may therefore be regarded as the standard of comparison for all manuscripts:
And what standard more reasonable and more convenient than the Text which, by the good providence of GOD, was universally employed throughout Europe for the first 300 years after the invention of printing? Being practically identical with the Text which... was in popular use at the end of three centuries from the date of the sacred autographs themselves; in other words, being more than 1500 years old [which was also thus confirmed by Bishop Ellicott, who was opposing Burgon]... The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ for the most part only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts. The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus... That pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any of them. [Burgon then addressed Bp. Ellicott] By your own showing therefore, the Textus Receptus is ‘at least’ 1550 years old. (The Revision Revised, pp. 386,390).
The big difference between the two groups was the W& H made a fanciful claim that the Received Text was a “recension” (hence a corruption) but the text of Codex Vaticanus was a “pure “ text and represented the autographs. This conclusion was based upon only ONE CRITERION – the age of the manuscripts. However, there are seven criteria which determine the value of any manuscript. On the other hand, the conservative scholars correctly stated that because the Received Text was the dominant text, it truly represented the autographs. Furthermore there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the text had been tampered with or that any “recension” had been secretly fabricated.
Thus Frederick H. A. Scrivener – who wrote the textbook on textual criticism and was the leading textual scholar of the day – condemned the fanciful theory of W& H, but was ignored by most of the scholars (who were already committed to W &H). Burgon quoted from Scrivener as follows (pp. iv,v):
The following is PREBENDARY SCRIVENER'S recently published estimate of the System on which DRS.WESTCOTT AND HORT have constructed their “Revised Greek Text of the New Testament” (1881).—That System, the Chairman of the Revising Body (BISHOP ELLICOTT) has entirely adopted (see below, pp. 391 to 397), and made the basis of his Defence of THE REVISERS and their “New Greek Text.”
(1.) “There is little hope for the stability of their imposing structure, if its foundations have been laid on the sandy ground of ingenious conjecture. And, since barely the smallest vestige of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the views of these accomplished Editors, their teaching must either be received as intuitively true, or dismissed from our consideration as precarious and even visionary.”
(2.) “DR. HORT'S System is entirely destitute of historical foundation.”
(3.) “We are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our strong conviction that the Hypothesis to whose proof he has devoted so many laborious years, is destitute not only of historical foundation, but of all probability, resulting from
the internal goodness of the Text which its adoption would force upon us.”
(4.) “ ‘We cannot doubt’ (says DR. HORT) ‘that S. Luke xxiii. 34 comes from an extraneous source.’ [Notes, p. 68.]—Nor can we, on our part, doubt,” (rejoins DR. SCRIVENER,) “that the System which entails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned.” SCRIVENER'S “Plain Introduction,” &c. [ed. 1883]: pp. 531,537, 542, 604.
The Trinitarian Bible Society, which has printed probably millions of Bibles (either of the King James or replicas of the King James in other languages) has taken an unequivocal stand on the Received Text based upon solid scholarship. Here is what they say:
The Greek Text: The Society uses the form of the Greek text of the New Testament known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text. This is the text which underlies the New Testament of the Authorised Version and the other Reformation translations. It is a faithful representation of the text which the church in different parts of the world has used for centuries. It is the result of the textual studies of conservative scholars during the years both before and after the Reformation, and represents for the most part over 5,000 available Greek manuscripts. The Society believes this text is superior to the texts used by the United Bible Societies and other Bible publishers, which texts have as their basis a relatively few seriously defective manuscripts from the 4th century and which have been compiled using 20th century rationalistic principles of scholarship.
