What is the Textus Receptus?

David Cloud summarized the words of Edward F. Hills: “... THE KING JAMES VERSION OUGHT TO BE REGARDED NOT MERELY AS A TRANSLATION OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS BUT ALSO AS AN INDEPENDANT VARIETY OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS. ... But what do we do in those few places in which the several editions of the Textus Receptus disagree with one another? Which text do we follow? The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith. HENCE WE FAVOR THAT FORM OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS UPON WHICH MORE THAN ANY OTHER, GOD, WORKING PROVIDENTALLY, HAS PLACED THE STAMP OF HIS APPROVAL, NAMELY THE KING JAMES VERSION , or more precisely, the Greek text underlying the King James Version.” (Hills, The King James Version Defended, pp. 220, 223)

Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name retroactively given to the succession of printed Greek language texts of the New Testament which constituted the textual base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale (1526), Myles Coverdale’s Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1537), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Bible (1557 - 60), The Bishops' Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611), and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe such as the Spanish Reina-Valera translation and the Czech Bible of Kralice. The Textus Receptus has been translated into hundreds of languages. (See Also The Word of God for All Nations) The origin of the term "Textus Receptus" comes from the publisher’s preface to the 1633 edition produced by Abraham Elzevir and his nephew Bonaventure who were printers at Leiden:

Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus. Translated "so you hold the text, now received by all, in which nothing corrupt."

The two words, "textum" and "receptum", were modified from the accusative to the nominative case to render textus receptus. Over time, this term has been retroactively applied to Erasmus’ editions, as his work served as the basis of others that followed. Many supporters of the Textus Receptus will name any manuscript which agrees with the Textus Receptus Greek as a "Textus Receptus" type manuscript. This type of association can also apply to early church quotations and language versions.

A Rich and Full History

Textus Receptus type manuscripts and versions have existed as the majority of texts for almost 2000 years.

All of the Apostolic Churches used the Textus Receptus type manuscripts
Peshitta (150 A.D.) was based on the Textus Receptus type manuscripts
Papyrus 66 used Textus Receptus type manuscripts
The Italic Church in the Northern Italy (157 A.D.) used Textus Receptus type manuscripts
The Gallic Church of Southern France (177 A.D.) used Textus Receptus type manuscripts
The Celtic Church used Textus Receptus type manuscripts
The Waldensians used Textus Receptus type manuscripts
The Gothic Version of the 4th or 5th century used Textus Receptus type manuscripts
Curetonian Syriac is basically a Textus Receptus type manuscript
Vetus Itala is from Textus Receptus type manuscripts
Codex Washingtonianus of Matthew used Textus Receptus type manuscripts
Codex Alexandrinus in the Gospels used Textus Receptus type manuscripts
The vast majority of extant New Testament Greek manuscripts are Textus Receptus type manuscripts (99% of them)
The Greek Orthodox Church used the Textus Receptus type manuscripts.

Greek manuscript evidences point to a Byzantine/Textus Receptus majority.

85% of papyri used Textus Receptus type manuscripts, only 13 represent text of Westcott-Hort type
97% of uncial manuscripts used Textus Receptus type manuscripts, only 9 manuscripts used the Westcott-Hort type
99% of minuscule manuscripts used Textus Receptus, only 23 used the Westcott-Hort type
100% of lectionaries used Textus Receptus type manuscripts.

The Age of Printing

Erasmus did not "invent" the Textus Receptus, but merely printed a small collection of what was already the vast majority of New Testament Manuscripts in the Byzantine tradition. The first printed Greek New Testament was the Complutensian Polyglot in (1514), but it was not published until eight years later, Erasmus' was the second Greek New Testament printed and published in (1516).

Although six chapters of the Gospel of John were printed at Venice as early as 1504, by Aldus Manutius, and the whole of that gospel was printed at Tubingen in Suabia, in 1512, these editions are interesting only as literary curiosities, for though they constituted the first portion of the Greek Testament ever committed to the press, they exercised no influence whatever on succeeding editions.

The first printed Greek New Testament was the Complutensian Polyglot (1514) but was not published until eight years later. Erasmus' edition was the second Greek New Testament which he called the Novum Instrumentum omne, printed and published in (1516). As early as 1505, Erasmus wrote to a friend;

“I shall sit down to Holy Scripture with my whole heart, and devote the rest of my life to it...[A]ll these three years I have been working entirely at Greek, and have not been playing with it” (Froude, The Life and Letters, p. 87).

Erasmus began working directly on the text much before 1507. Froude wrote that years before the text appeared, it was being prepared.

“He had been at work over the Greek MSS. for many years. The work was approaching completion” (Froude, The Life and Letters, p. 93).

Frederick Nolan, writing in 1815, states, in addition to the manuscripts which Erasmus owned or had seen himself, he gathered readings from various European nations through his broad friendships in universities, libraries, and monasteries. He noted;

textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus - from the 1633 Greek New Testament produced by Abraham Elzevir and his nephew Bonaventure who were printers at Leiden

“I have a room full of letters from men of learning...” “[W]e find by the dates of his letters that he was corresponding at length and elaborately with the learned men of his time on technical points of scholarship, Biblical criticism...” (Froude, The Life and Letters, pp. 377, 394).

In 1512 Erasmus had been in negotiation with Badius Ascensius of Paris to publish the Vulgate of Jerome and a new edition of Adagia. It did not happen, and Erasmus did not continue contacts with Badius. While many critics of Erasmus and the Textus Receptus claim that Erasmus used only a small handful of manuscripts, this is not a correct hypothesis, because the libraries and scriptoriums throughout Europe would not simply give away manuscripts, therefore Erasmus travelled vastly to examine many manuscripts and wrote down variants, and thus had no need to personally acquire the manuscripts or have them on hand when he penned the Novum Instrumentum omne. Erasmus updated his 1516 "Textus Receptus" in 1519, and again in 1522, 1527 and his final edition in 1535. Stephanus also edited the Textus Receptus in 1546, 1549, 1550 (Editio Regia), and 1551. Theodore Beza edited the Textus Receptus nine times between 1565 and 1604. The Authorized Version translators used the 1598 of Beza, a disciple of John Calvin, who both had access to Waldensian versions and manuscripts. This "family" of texts is also known as the Antiochian Text, Byzantine Text, Syrian Text, Greek Vulgate, and (until the 1980's) the Majority Text.

The Textus Receptus edited by Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, and first published in 1881, was based upon the 1598 of Beza, but departs in 190 places (see 190 Variations in Scrivener’s 1881 Greek New Testament from Beza's 1598 Textus Receptus), following at times, earlier readings of Erasmus and Stephanus, and sometimes following the printing errors of the original 1611 Authorized Version. The title on the cover for the Textus Receptus printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society is Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ which is Greek for The New Testament or The New Covenant. The 1598 Greek Textus Receptus of Beza and the 1525 Hebrew Masoretic Text of Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah, are the closest printed editions of the Greek and Hebrew texts. However the unprinted edition underlying the KJV is the most accurate form of the TR, departing from Beza in about 20 places. Had the KJV translators published this edition, there would be no King James Only Movement and KJV and TR positions would follow that edition. Scrivener tried to produce this text but it falls short in some minor places. We believe that the King James Version is the most accurate representation of the Textus Receptus and is without translational error. Any translation faithful to this text is THE word of God by default. We do not believe that the King James Version has any secondary inspiration. Our hope is to have the "TR" translated into every language and to help revive a trust once again in the true words of God. This site also exposes corrupt Greek and Hebrew texts and versions based upon them.

Modern "textual criticism" is focused on a narrowing of the field to a few corrupted and rejected manuscripts sidestepping the huge amount of Greek and Latin manuscripts and the early church witnesses as unimportant, only to be used when they can be referenced to try to give some support to the Vaticanus primacy corruption. It really is an anachronism fallacy (false definition) to speak of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, to be doing textual criticism. Since their value were in general opposite those of the Griesbach to Hort to Metzger to Wallace confusions. They based themselves on mostly the Greek and Latin manuscripts and the early church witnesses with some faith-consistent logical and grammatical type of internal evidence considerations. This is essentially, the opposite of "textual criticism" as used today which has a bias presupposition towards Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Theodore Beza

The 1525 Hebrew Masoretic Text of Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah, published by Daniel Bomberg, is considered to be the Old Testament Textus Receptus but departs in a few places (see Variations in 1525 Hebrew Masoretic Text from the accepted modern Hebrew Masoretic Text). It is the text received by the Hebrews as the word of God. While most use the term Textus Receptus in a New Testament sense, this also applies to the text received by the traditionalists, the Masoretics, and their text handed down. The Masoretic Text is widely used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles. Discoveries in modern times such as the Dead Sea Scrolls have revealed the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 BC.

Languages Abenaki - Afrikaans - Akuapem Twi - Akei - Albanian - Aleut - Alutiiq - Amharic - Aniwa - Apache - Arabic - Aramaic - Armenian - Arapaho - Azeri - Basque - Bayak - Belorusian - Braille - Bulgarian - Burmese - Cakchiquel - Carrier - Catalan - Cebuano - Cherokee - Chinese - Chope - Cibemba - Coptic - Cornish - Cree - Croatian - Czech - Dakota - Danish - Dogrib - Dutch - English - Esperanto - Finnish - French - German - Gothic - Greek - Gullah - Gwich'in - Haida - Haitian - Hawaiian - Hawaiian Creole English - Hebrew - Hopi - Hungarian - Icelandic - Ilocano - Indonesian - Inupiaq - Irish - Italian - Japanese - Jèrriais - Kazakh - Keres - Khmer - Konkani - Korean - Koryak - Koyukon - Latin - Lisu - Lithuanian - Macedonian - Malayalam - Malaysian - Manx - Maori - Micmac - Mohawk - Navajo - Norwegian - O'odham - Ojibwa - Oromo - Pashto - Inupiaq - Persian - Pidgin - Pipil - Polish - Portuguese - Romani - Romanian - Russian - Seneca - Serbian - Shor - Slavonic - Slovene - Spanish - Swahili - Swedish - Tagalog - Upper Tanana - Tatar - Tamil - Tewa - Thai - Tibetan - Tlingit - Tongan - Tsimshian - Turkish - Urdu - Ukrainian - Uyghur - Uzbek - Vietnamese - Wakhi - Welsh - Wampanoag - Waray - Xhosa - Yiddish - Yoruba - Yupik - Zulu - Zuñi

The King James Version 2023 Edition New Testament is now complete and in print format here.

Internal Links

Old Testament - New Testament KJV 1900

New Testament KJV 2016

Scrivener's 1894 Textus Receptus

2016 Urdu New Testament (TR Based)

Russian Synodal Version (TR Based)

Reina Valera Gómez Spanish (TR Based)

Marginal Notes in the 1611 Authorized Version

Ephesians 3:9

Why We Should Not Passover Easter 1, 2, & 3

Will Kinney

List of TR/KJV based foreign bibles

List of New Testament minuscules

List of New Testament lectionaries

List of New Testament Papyri

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42 · 43 · 44 · 45 · 46 · 47 · 48 · 49 · 50 · 51 · 52 · 53 · 54 · 55 · 56 · 57 · 58 · 59 · 60 · 61 · 62 · 63 · 64 · 65 · 66 · 67 · 68 · 69 · 70 · 71 · 72 · 73 · 74 · 75 · 76 · 77 · 78 · 79 · 80 · 81 · 82 · 83 · 84 · 85 · 86 · 87 · 88 · 89 · 90 · 91 · 92 · 93 · 94 · 95 · 96 · 97 · 98 · 99 · 100 · 101 · 102 · 103 · 104 · 105 · 106 · 107 · 108 · 109 · 110 · 111 · 112 · 113 · 114 · 115 · 116 · 117 · 118 · 119 · 120 · 121 · 122 · 123 · 124 · 125 · 126 · 127 · 128 · 129 · 130 · 131 · 132 · 133 · 134 · 135 · 136 · 137 · 138 · 139 · 140 ·