TEXTUS RECEPTUS IS NOT THE
By Joseph Dugas
I have been reading a bit deeper into the Issue about the New King James bible and why many people like the Ahos' say that it agrees with the Textus Receptus better then our 1769 King James Bible. These former King James Bible believers are now using the Textus Receptus to promote the New King James bible. To understand why and how, this is what I've found.
The first thing to know (and which many people overlook) is that the King James Bible is not based on a single Greek manuscript or source like most Bibles of the time. Its actually based on portions from three Greek sources, the editions of Erasmus, Stephenus, & Beza, but also uses portions from the Vulgate and Complutensian Polyglot bible.
Dr. Edward F. Hills wrote: �The King James Version is a variety of the Textus Receptus. The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza�s Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9)."
Hills went onto say that �According to Scrivener (1884), out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus.� [The King James Bible Defended]
So according to Hills and Scrivener, Our King James Bible is based on a collection of readings which the translators were led to use via prayer and the common faith.
What was labeled Textus Receptus was a version in 1633 by Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir of the Stephenus Greek text which was revised with parts of Beza. This was the text first called Textus Receptus due to a quote from the preface:
�textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immulatum aut corruptum damus,' "so you hold the text, now received by all, in which nothing corrupt."
This text was not completely the same as our King James Bible used because it left out the sources of Erasmus's Greek as well as the Vulgate and the Complutensian Polyglot, instead it substituted with text from either of the two Greek sources.
What we call the Textus Receptus today is F.H.A. Scrivener's revision of the 1633 �Textus Receptus�. Like the previous 'TR', it didn't contain all the material used in the KJV. In 1873 Scrivener published his Greek text with a revision he made of the King James Bible to agree with his text. This revision (counterfeit) was later revised further creating the New King James counterfeit.
Some changes Scrivener made to the King James Bible which were basis of the New King James are:
Scrivener was also a member of the committee for the 1881 English Revised Version (Wescott & Hort's Bible) which further calls into question the reliability of his work.
The bottom line is that the Textus Receptus agreeing more with the New King James bible doesn't matter. Our King James Bible is based on the (extant Greek) readings the translators were led to use by the common faith and prayer, and they didn't need a text which did not exist until 262 years later.
Editor's note- Steve Van Nattan: It is important to learn if your pastor or Bible teacher believes the King James Bible is as miraculously preserved in 1611 in English as it was inspired when the Holy Ghost gave it to the New Testament writers. Anyone who does not believe in miraculous preservation of the King James Bible is a hireling and should be avoided and marked as heretic.
It is instructional to see the rapid decline into chaos of Christendom, into innumerable heresies and silliness, since 1900, the point at which the Westcott and Hort Greek text began to displace the King James Bible. The single most terrifying issue is this- the Bible is no longer being memorized. This is because there is no single Bible in authority in the English language. Alleged local churches often don't even read it because it does not fit into the schedule of the Barnum and Bailey circus on the platform.