trying to buy the Textus Receptus!

Stever posts:

If you purchase the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by Jay P. Green, Sr. you will have the "Textus Receptus" that created the King James Bible.

You can also purchase The Interlinear Greek-English N.T. by Berry.

Both books are available on Amazon.com however, I prefer Green's book over Berry's.

In both of these books you will find the Textus Receptus from which the KJV was translated in 1611. Literal modern English words appear between the Greek lines and under each word, making it possible for anyone to make an accurate check of all Bibles versions. The KJV appears in the margins. Notice in how many ways modern translations vary from the Greek text.

Textus Receptus
Before we consider the King James Version (KJV) and a few of the modern translations in use today, let us first consider certain Greek texts from which all New Testament translations are derived. Foremost amongst these is the Traditional Received Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text because it is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. These extant manuscripts (MSS) were brought together by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus, the name given to the Majority Text in the 17th century. The most notable editor of all was Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) one of the greatest scholars the world has ever known. When the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document. It is vitally important to understand why they did so.

Wilkinson writes in his book Truth Triumphant: Quote: "The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called Textus Receptus, or the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch and other languages. During the dark ages the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church. It was restored to Christendom by the labours of that great scholar Erasmus. It is altogether too little known that the real editor of the Received Text was Lucian. None of Lucian's enemies fails to credit him with this work. Neither Lucian nor Erasmus, but rather the apostles, wrote the Greek New Testament.

However, Lucian's day was an age of apostasy when a flood of depravations was systematically attempting to devastate both the Bible manuscripts and Bible theology. Origen, of the Alexandrian college, made his editions and commentaries of the Bible a secure retreat for all errors, and deformed them with philosophical speculations introducing casuistry and lying. Lucian's unrivalled success in verifying, safeguarding, and transmitting those divine writings left a heritage for which all generations should be thankful." (Ref: J2)
The King James Bible Old Testament was translated from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text; named after Jacob ben Chayyim, under whose editorship it was printed in in 1524-5).

Two Bibles
In his book Which Bible? David Otis Fuller says this about Textus Receptus. Carefully note Fuller's first point that all churches (we could now add all Bible students) fall into one of two basic study categories:

1) Those who use a variety of Bibles influenced by the Minority Text (the Nestle/Aland Text). For 45 years I was in this camp; but I thank God for opening my eyes.

2) Those who only study Bibles based on the Majority Text, from which came the Received Text - Textus Receptus. I have now joined this camp.

Fuller continues: Quote: "First of all, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably, far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic Church.

All these churches, some earlier, some later, were in opposition to the Church of Rome and at a time when the Received Text and these Bibles of the Constantine type were rivals. They, as represented in their descendants, are rivals to this day. The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible; these others built on the Received Text. Therefore, because they themselves believed that the Received Text was the true apostolic Bible, and further, because the Church of Rome arrogated to itself the power to choose a Bible which bore the marks of systematic depravation, we have the testimony of these five churches to the authenticity and the apostolicity of the Received Text." ( Ref: F1)

Why did the early churches of the 2nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text?
The answer is because:

Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.

Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.

Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church.

Remember this vital point.
Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of of the writings of the early Church Fathers (Patristics) 86,000+ citations!

Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.

Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
Textus Receptus was - and still is - the enemy of the Roman Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind.

Reverend Gipp comments further: Quote: "The Majority Text has been known throughout history by several names. It has been known as the Byzantine text, the Imperial Text, the Traditional Text and the Reformation Text as well as the Majority Text. This text culminates in the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text which is the basis for the King James Bible, which we know also as the Authorized Version....We describe this text with the term "Universal," because it represents the majority of extant MSS which represent the original autographs. Professor Hodges of Dallas Theological Seminary explains, "The manuscript of an ancient book will, under any but the most exceptional conditions, multiply in a reasonable regular fashion with the result that the copies nearest the autograph will normally have the largest number of descendants." (Ref:B3)

Continuing from page 66 in Gipp's book: Quote: "Professor Hodges concludes, 'Thus the Majority text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text. This claim is quite independent of any shifting consensus of scholarly judgment about its readings and is based on the objective reality of its dominance in the transmissional history of the New Testament text.' " (Ref:B4)

In his book God Wrote Only One Bible, Jasper J Ray pens the following testimony about Textus Receptus: Quote: "Wonder of wonders, in the midst of all the present confusion regarding manuscripts, we still have a Bible we can trust. The writing of the Word of God by inspiration is no greater miracle than the miracle of its preservation in the Textus Receptus. All criticism of this text from which was translated the King James Bible, is based upon an unproved hypothesis: i.e. that there are older and more dependable copies of the original Bible manuscripts. No one in nineteen hundred years, has been able to prove that one jot or tittle has been inserted or taken out." (Ref:D3)

In his book Final Authority, William P Grady provides further interesting details about Textus Receptus, the Received Text:
Quote: "For instance, over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament exist today ranging from small fragments containing two or three verses to nearly entire Bibles. Their ages vary from the second to the sixteenth century; the manuscripts are ending with the arrival of printing. By comparison, there exist only ten quality manuscripts of Caesar's Gallic War composed between 58-50BC… "Once again, the outstanding features of the Received Text is its high percentage of agreement among so many thousands of independent witnesses. This agreement is often placed at about 90 percent; in other words, 90 percent of all existing manuscripts agree with one another so miraculously that they are able to form their own unique text…

If the critic of your King James Bible is correct in his rejection of the underlying Textus Receptus, then he is also under the greatest pressure to account for its existence. To complain of fabrication is one thing, but to account for its universal prevalence is quite another. Whenever a large body of ancient documents are seen to be in agreement, this inexplicable harmony becomes their greatest evidence for legitimacy. Simple arithmetic confirms that the nearer a particular reading is to the original, the longer the time span will be for descendants to follow. The longer the family is, the older the original source must be."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I pray that this is helpful to you.

God bless,

Stever

Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.

[b](1)..........if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.[/b]

The TR is 'based' on on the MT, but it is not exact in every way. The TR has its own 'additions' to the text.

If nothing else this shows that the TR is not 'perfect'...

Clearly Im not a KJVonly-er...as I dont believe God speaks english, nor favors english in any way.
The TR and the KJV bible are great resources, great works for the cause of the Lord.... yet not perfect.

I wouldnt trust the Minority Texts as far as I can toss my minivan...but anyone who believes the TR or the KJV 'perfect' is greatly deluding themselves....the Comma is proof of that fact.

The ACTUAL Majority Texts, not the TR with its added Comma, should be the basis for our NTs.

Stever responds:

The Comma Johanneum is a fraud, put forward by Metzger who will lie in order to make his chosen "newer versions" (NIV, NASB, etc.) more palatable to an unsuspecting Church:

The truth of the matter, and Metzger's withdrawal of his charge from all of his newer versions of his book "The Text of the New Testament" can be found here:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/mythsabout-erasmus.html

"In the 3rd edition of The Text of the New Testament Bruce Metzger corrected his false assertion about Erasmus as follows: “What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus’ promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion” (Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd edition, p. 291, footnote 2)."

The first two editions of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament in the early 16th century omitted the following words from 1 John 5:7-8 -- “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” This portion of Scripture containing a clear Trinitarian statement is called the Johannine Comma. It was added to the third edition of the Erasmus Greek New Testament and it was not again seriously questioned until the 19th century.

There are two popular myths regarding Erasmus and 1 John 5:7 that are parroted by modernists, evangelicals, and even fundamentalists today who defend the modern versions against the KJV.

The first myth is that Erasmus promised to insert the verse if a Greek manuscript were produced. This is stated as follows by Bruce Metzger: “Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found--or made to order” (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 1st and 2nd editions).

The second myth is that Erasmus challenged Edward Lee to find a Greek manuscript that included 1 John 5:7. This originated with Erika Rummel in 1986 in her book Erasmus’ Annotations and was repeated by James White in 1995 (The Truth about the KJV-Only Controversy).

In A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8, Michael Maynard records that H.J. de Jonge, the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Rijksuniversiteit (Leiden, Netherlands), has refuted both myths. de Jonge, a recognized specialist in Erasmian studies, refuted the myth of a promise in 1980, stating that Metzger’s view on Erasmus’ promise “has no foundation in Erasmus’ work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise.”

De Jonge has also refuted the new myth of a challenge (which Rummel devised in reaction to the burial of the promise myth). In a letter of June 13, 1995, to Maynard, de Jonge wrote:

“I have checked again Erasmus’ words quoted by Erika Rummel and her comments on them in her book Erasmus’ Annotations. This is what Erasmus writes [on] in his Liber tertius quo respondet ... Ed. Lei: Erasmus first records that Lee had reproached him with neglect of the MSS. of 1 John because Er. (according to Lee) had consulted only one MS. Erasmus replies that he had certainly not used only one ms., but many copies, first in England, then in Brabant, and finally at Basle. He cannot accept, therefore, Lee’s reproach of negligence and impiety. ‘Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.’

“From this passage you can see that Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript etc. What Erasmus argues is that Lee may only reproach Erasmus with negligence of MSS if he demonstrates that Erasmus could have consulted any MS. in which the Comma Johanneum figured. Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS. containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access.

“In short, Rummel’s interpretation is simply wrong. The passage she quotes has nothing to do with a challenge. Also, she cuts the quotation short, so that the real sense of the passage becomes unrecognizable. She is absolutely not justified in speaking of a challenge in this case or in the case of any other passage on the subject” (emphasis in original) (de Jonge, cited from Maynard, p. 383).

Jeffrey Khoo observes further: “Yale professor Roland Bainton, another Erasmian expert, agrees with de Jonge, furnishing proof from Erasmus’ own writing that Erasmus’ inclusion of 1 John 5:7f was not due to a so-called ‘promise’ but the fact that he believed ‘the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome’” (Jeffrey Khoo, Kept Pure in All Ages, 2001, p. 88).

Edward F. Hills, who had a doctorate in textual criticism from Harvard, testifies: “... it was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking Church” (Hills, The King James Version Defended).

In the 3rd edition of The Text of the New Testament Bruce Metzger corrected his false assertion about Erasmus as follows: “What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus’ promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion” (Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd edition, p. 291, footnote 2).

The problem is that these myths continue to be paraded as truth by modern version defenders.

A recommended resource for further study is Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8: a tracing of the longevity of the Comma Johanneum, with evaluations of arguments against its authenticity (Comma Publications, P.O. Box 1625, Tempe, AZ 85280-1625, receptus@sprynet.com; a second edition is scheduled for publication sometime in late 2005).

Stever concludes:

When will it ever end? The Textus Receptus is not corrupt. The "Scholars" that support the newer versions are the ones with the truly spurious charges. They are the corrupted ones, trying to make the Minority Text equal to the Majority Text by fabridcating stories and creating lies about it!

God bless,

Stever :-)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

FOC wrote:

.

Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.

[b](1)..........if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.[/b]
. [b][color=0033FF]THIS IS FALSE- SEE ABOVE POST BY STEVER[/color][/b]

The TR is 'based' on on the MT, but it is not exact in every way. The TR has its own 'additions' to the text.

If nothing else this shows that the TR is not a 'perfect' translation....as if translation could ever attain perfection to begin with.

Clearly Im not a KJVonly-er...as I dont believe God speaks english, nor favors english in any way.
The TR and the KJV bible are great resources, great works for the cause of the Lord.... yet not perfect.

I wouldnt trust the Minority Texts as far as I can toss my minivan...but anyone who believes the TR or the KJV 'perfect' is greatly deluding themselves....the Comma is proof of that fact.

The ACTUAL Majority Texts, not the TR with its added Comma, should be the basis for our NTs

FYI, I presented ONE source for the Johannine Comma.

IF youd like, I can dig up literally hundreds of other sources that I used in my studies that show the information as well....
[color=FF0000]THIS IS TRUE - SEE THE FACTS THEMSELVES[/color]
[b]that the Comma is not present in the MAJORITY of Greek manuscripts
[/b]
I absolutely LOVE to see an attack on the messenger when the FACTS begin to fail.
[color=FF0000]THIS IS TRUE - SEE THE FACTS THEMSELVES[/color]
[b]the Comma isnt present in the MAJORITY of greek manuscripts...SUPPOSEDLY where the Textus Receptus is from !!![/b]...therefore...REGARDLESS of who presents this fact..the comma has MOST of the greek manuscripts standing against it.....it does not belong...that is what its own family of texts present...the GMTs

Stever, NOTHING in your long post PROVES that the Comma is indeed contained within the MAJORITY of greek texts....so all I saw was you calling me and this Metzger chap liars without actually providing a single word of proof to the contrary.

Your long post is concerning some argument I care nothing about pertaining to Erasmus....who cares....IS THE COMMA IN the MAJORITY of greek manuscripts?
No, it is not.....

to repeat....
I wouldnt trust the [b]Minority[/b] Texts as far as I can toss my minivan...but anyone who believes the TR or the KJV 'perfect' is greatly deluding themselves....the Comma is proof of that fact.

Combat_Chuck wrote:
$10 bucks says Stever drops an Atomic Bomb on FOC :-P ;-)

I dont give a hoot about some arguement against the author of that site...attacking the writer instead of what they present is a typical tactic for KJVonlyers from my experience.

[color=330099]Who cares about Metzger or Erasmus....the Johannine Comma ISNT found in the MAJORITY of Greek texts...THAT is all that matters...not some distraction about Erasmus.[/color]

stever didnt refute the assertion, he attacked the writer...

again..
I wouldnt trust the [b]Minority[/b] Texts as far as I can toss my minivan...but anyone who believes the TR or the KJV 'perfect' is greatly deluding themselves....the Comma is proof of that fact.

Ill start posting items FROM KJV advocates themselves who ADMIT that the Comma isnt found in the MAJORITY of greek manuscripts....apparently, according to some, this would mean that the MAJORITY of Gods word was 'corrupt' for centuries :rolleyes:

Readers, this will take some time as Im involved with getting my website updated, but I will prove that those KJVonlyers who are HONEST with themselves MUST admit that the Johannine Comma doesnt have the backing of the MAJORITY of greek manuscripts.

If THEY admit it isnt present, then who cares about this Metzger distraction?

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html
[color=0000CC]
"The passage is called the Johannine Comma and is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts."

"The External Support: Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several."

"It is clear that the reading found in the Textus Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek witnesses. Nevertheless, being a minority reading does not eliminate it as genuine."[/color]

[color=993300]...even the studied KJV advocates admit that the very texts to which they say the TR BELONGS (the GMTs) is MISSING the Comma !!![/color]

this site says that the Comma is NOT present in the majority of GREEK texts...but IS present in the LATIN texts.

[color=0000CC]"While the Greek textual evidence is weak, the [b]Latin[/b] textual evidence for the Comma is extremely strong".[/color]

That in itself is very suspicious to me.

Is the TR based on the LATIN texts or the GREEK texts as the KJVonly camp insists?
It almost seems as if its based on the Latin, not the greek, if the GMTs dont contain the Comma, but the Latin ones do...

[color=FF3300][b]Guess its time for the KJVonlyers to stop calling the TR the 'Majority Text' since it is supported from the Latin, not the greek..[/b]

.[/color]

Combat_Chuck wrote:
Stever,

If the earliest of the Byzantine Texts do not have 1 John 5:7,

Aren't we kind of in trouble?

I mean, after all, since Byzantine is where the textus receptus comes from, wouldn't it make the most sense in this case, that the earliest Byzantine (and majority) Byzantine are the best?

I heard 1John5:7 is only in a few of the 5000 Byzantine texts we have. Is this true?

There are arguments for the Comma, many that make a LOT of sense, including grammatical issues when the Comma is removed....but that is proof of nothing....it is overshadowed horribly by the Comma not being present in the MAJORITY of Greek texts....the one place it should be in abundance *IF* the KJVonlyers were correct that the TR IS the Majority Text....make sense?

additionally, no, we're not in trouble.
I believe God has permitted just enough of this sort of thing so that we do not 'worship' a book as being perfect instead of God.

Probably for the same reason God hid the body of Moses. Men have a knack of wanting to worship idols instead of God.

We see enough bible worship as it is, making the letter a god as almighty as the author Himself.

What we need for salvations sake is there.

Additionally...

I am not 'against' the KJV bible, nor am I an advocate for the Minority Texts or any bibles that use them.
I believe the [b]ACTUAL[/b] GREEK MAJORITY TEXTS (over the TR which apparently is influenced by the latin texts) are the ones to be trusted for our NT...meaning that where a discrepancy exists, the Greek is what I consider correct.

Here is a site that is rabidly KJ only from what I can tell....and yet...
[b]
"For the absence of the Johannine comma from all New Testament documents save those of the Latin-speaking West the following explanations are possible"
[/b]

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdcha8.htm

IS the TR based on the ACTUAL GREEK MTs or the LATIN texts themselves?
Sure seems to be the Latin...

The TR nor the KJV bible is THE authority, or the end all, beat all resource for the body of Christ.

They are both wonderful works...no more, no less.

Although the comma is not found in the earliest majority byzantine manuscripts, (which does bring in the valid question, of "then why is it in the TR?),

KJVonly advocates clearly maintain, even violently so, that the TR IS the MT....and yet we have this terrible contradiction.

The TR cannot be based solely on the MT or the overwhelming evidence IN the MT would clearly show that the Comma doesnt belong....based on sheer numbers.

we should note that the comma is found in other ancient sources.

Perhaps later on he found out that several external sources contain the comma, and decided it was scripture so he went with the minority on that point within the 3rd edition? This seems reasonable to me.

I do believe 1John5:7 is scripture.

The Comma does seem to fit the concept of the rest of the passage, and i believe was honestly part of Johns intent...but that doesnt mean that John actually wrote the Comma himself.

I see no reason why a mss. copyist would add it, but I see plenty of reason why someone would remove it.

The trinity is c.learly presented in Scripture, removing the comma pretty much does nothing as far as understanding the trinity.

this is equivelent of some catholics saying the Jews omitted some books of canon to try to dismiss the Christ.
If this were true, the Jews were completely oblivious since they left the one book that is the most convincing pertaining to the Messiah....Isaiah.
*IF* the Jews wanted to do away with Christ, as some catholics maintain, they sure did a lousy job of picking which books to omit from OT canon.

Same with the Comma.
There are other passages, such as John 1;

[b]Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[/b]

...that show who Jesus is....and also OT passages that clearly state who this Man Jesus is...

"[b]Isa 9:6 For unto us [color=990066]a child is born[/color], unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: [color=990066]and his name shall be called[/color] Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, [color=990066]The everlasting Father[/color], The Prince of Peace. [/b]

...among others.

*IF* the comma WERE authenic...and IF there was a conspiracy to omit the trinity from the texts, the bonehead who decided what to omit surely should have been fired on the spot.

For the record, I have not done much study, and am not a "KJV Only", but I do believe the KJV is the living Bible and is the closest translation to the originals we have in the english language.

There are some Hebrew phrases that CANNOT be rendered 'perfectly' into english..that alone keeps the KJV bible from being 'perfect'

However, the question still stands: Why don't the early Byzantine manuscripts contain 1John 5:7?

Additionally, I believe that the Comma was a sidebar notation, presenting an 'interpretation' of what the passage in John might represent, and at a point was mistakenly or purposely added to the text.

This removes the 'conspiracy' factor (in that the conspirators would have to be complete morons to have missed all the rest of the trinity related scriptures), allows for the Comma to be 'authenic' in that it DOES show the intent in the passage it is in...and also makes sense of why it is not present in so many GREEK texts where it surely should be contained