The following is a guest post by Timothy L. Decker. He received his Ph.D. from Capital Seminary and Graduate School in 2021. He is a professor of Biblical Languages and New Testament at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary and an adjunct professor of New Testament with International Reformed Baptist Seminary. He is also one of the pastors of Trinity Reformed Baptist Church near Roanoke, VA. His most recent publication is A Revolutionary Reading of Romans 13.
His edition of the Sermon on the Mount (which provides the data behind this post) is available here.
A CRITICAL APPARATUS OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS TRADITION
Claims from those who promote and advocate for the TR
In a brief article written by G. W. and D. E. Anderson and published on the Trinitarian Bible Society’s website, they asked, “Are the variations between the editions of the Textus Receptus significant?” The answered, “No. These variations include spelling, accents and breathing marks, word order and other minor kinds of differences.”1 Likewise, the intro to the TBS’s TR (Scrivener’s) claims, “The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense.”2 Further along in Anderson and Anderson’s article, they asked, “How many differences are found between the Scrivener text [of the TBS TR] and the Stephanus and Beza texts? There are approximately 190 differences between the Scrivener text and the Beza 1598. There are 283 differences between the Scrivener text and the Stephanus 1550. These differences are minor” [italics added].
Do these claims hold up? I’m not asking about the numbers, though I wonder about those as well. But I am suspicious of the claim that these differences between Scrivener’s TR and that of Beza or Stephanus are only minor. In order either to prove or disprove this claim, I have undertaken a project wherein I evaluated the Sermon on the Mount and made a critical apparatus of the various TR editions over against Scrivener’s TR text of Matt 5–7. I consulted over 20 various TR editions (more on that below), and noted the variants among them compared to Scrivener.3 Below, I will explain my methodology. However, this seemed to be the only true test to evaluate these claims.
Having now completed a collation of TR editions of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7), my suspicions were confirmed. From the results of my own study, to claim only “minor” differences between the various editions is a stretch. And that would also include between Beza and Stephanus in some places, much less all the other editions among the TR tradition compared with Scrivener’s. Indeed, the results of my research yielded that such claims among the TR advocates are patently false. On the other hand, I will readily grant that there is a stabilization among the TR tradition and its various editions. Nevertheless, such stability in the tradition only occurred after much labor and many editions—correcting, editing, and improving upon itself. One might say that the task of textual criticism for those in the 1500s and 1600s was a constant one, to achieve what they believed to be the best text of the NT.
Methods and variants noted
Before looking into the details of my findings, perhaps it would be best to explain my decisions for what is and is not recorded in the apparatus and why. As will be explained below, there are three categories of variants that I compile, drawn primarily from the words and concepts of the claims made by TBS or Anderson and Anderson above. Based on their own assertions and using their own words (see quotes above), we might propose three categories to include in the apparatus. Category I: variants “of great significance” or major variants that would be translatable, Category II: subtle variants (such as spelling) that “affect the sense,” and Category III: inconsequential variants “not of great significance” and that do not “affect the sense.” Both sources above admit Category III variants exist. But what of the other two categories? Category II and Category I are either denied all together or avoided. However, all three of these categories are observed in the TR tradition of Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7).
Of course, while not all categories are of equal weight or importance, they do serve purposes of research. For example, the last category (III) of inconsequential variants, which amounts to spelling errors or the omission of final nu and sigma,4 are included in the apparatus. However, this is primarily for the aid of researchers to track the revision processes of certain editions,5 as well as to note both progression as well as regression in editorial refinement.6 Therefore, non-sensical spellings (such as “ἀθελφοῦ” instead of “ἀδελφοῦ” in Beza1588, 1598 at Matt 7:5; see previous footnote) and alternate though not incorrect spellings (such as Matt 7:25 προσέπεσον compared to all five editions of Erasmus rendering προσέπεσαν) are included. Their importance is slight except for those tracking the development of editorial refinements in the process of the TR tradition.
Lest anyone would object to the inclusion of Category III variants such as these, I would simply point those detractors to F. H. A. Scrivener’s 1860 work with the Stephanus 1550 TR.7 In this TR edition, he included his own critical apparatus of various GNT editions. He also noted some of these same slight spelling incongruities among the texts he was studying, including the spelling difference at Matt 7:25. However, Scrivener cited this alternate spelling in Tischendorf and Tregelles. It seems only fair to cite Erasmus for the same difference as well as all those like this one. Indeed, this is the same alternate spelling found not only in all five of Erasmus’s editions but also in Aldine, Köpfel, Gerbelius, and Colinaeus. Likewise in his apparatus, Scrivener also cited the absence or inclusion of final sigma such as Beza1565 and Elzevirs1624 at 1 John 2:6. So this is standard operating procedure for such a task as I am setting out to accomplish
Other Category III variants are more important for study, though they are both minor and not translatable. Variation of word order or variants of verbs with the same cognate root but leave off the prepositional prefix may not affect the sense in English (see apparatus at Matt 7:2 or 7:28). However, if one were to object that these variants should not be included, we would only point them to those TR advocates who make much of every jot and tittle. Often, they object to assertions of no major doctrine affected by textual variants by retorting, “What about the doctrine of bibliology?” Well, let us hold the TR to the same standard! These variants must also be included to give a full-throated examination of the claims made by TR proponents of the TR tradition.
The second category of variants (Category II) mentioned by the TR proponents above would be “minor variants” such as spelling discrepancies. However, these slight errors, or what the Anderson’s described as “minor kinds of differences,” are only minor to the uninitiated. Nevertheless, these “minor variants” do affect the sense, especially the grammatical sense. They are often caused by subtle, slight spelling variations that may even be aurally identical. On numerous occasions in the SotM, there are cases where the βάλλω word group would vary between the 2nd aorist form with one lambda to the present form with two lambdas, the difference being important for discussions of verbal aspect. Noting such variants for Category II is the norm for such a critical apparatus. Both Scrivener and I cited the variant spelling of the Elzevirs’ 1624 edition at Matt 6:34, not as the TR’s “μεριμνήσητε” (aorist subjunctive) but as “μεριμνήσετε” (future indicative).
Finally, there is the inclusion of major variants (Category I). Here, we mean variants such as omissions, additions, and alternate wordings that are translatable. Most, even those not conversant with NT Greek, will recognize these. That there are a limited number of these speaks to the TR tradition’s relative stability in its development. However, that these exist at all also speaks to the concept that there is not just one TR edition, and these men were always refining and improving the current GNT of their day. It also means that the quoted claims above are factually, verifiably false.
Now one may object that the slight spelling variations for the personal pronouns should be included in Category II rather than Category I. At that point, we are simply quibbling over numbers (stacking up the numbers for Category I vs Category II). However, while these are usually differentiated by switching the eta for the upsilon (or vice versa), nevertheless these changes are translatable differences. Therefore, I chose to include them in my findings for Category I. And as they happen in notable places, such as the Lord’s Prayer, then this would constitute as a major change. Imagine hearing, “Your Father who is in heaven,” as Beza1582, 1588, 1598 reads!
A word also needs to be said about the editions I examined and what I would consider under the “TR tradition” moniker. The names most commonly associated with the TR tradition would begin with Erasmus and be followed by Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs.8 However, Scrivener himself also included the Complutensian Polyglot (1514/1522), Aldine/Aldus (1518), and Coline/Colinaeus (1534) in his Plain Introduction.9 Even the TBS TR (Scrivener’s) printed edition that I personally own mentioned the Complutensian Polyglot and Colinaeus editions. I, therefore, find justification to include them in my consultation. I have also included and Gerbelius (1521) and Köpfel (1524) in my examination to see early iterations of the TR tradition as well as to consider those in contact with Erasmus and who may have befriended Luther and Melancthon at some point. Others could have been added, but these are the primary voices that would eventuate in what some refer to as the more mature Protestant TR tradition. As a side note, I only consulted Beza’s major/folio Greek editions,10 and I could not attain access to examine a copy of the Elzevir 1641 edition. At the end of the text and apparatus, I include the list of 22 editions collated in comparison to Scrivener.
Category I: Major variants (“great significance”)
•Significant or translatable Omissions (5:20 2x, 5:25, 5:27, 5:31; 6:4, 6:6,11 6:13, 6:1812 2x, 6:22, 6:29, 6:34)•Significant or translatable Insertions (Matt 6:1, 6:15; 7:10)•Major or translatable lexical variation: Matt 5:47 ἀδελφοὺς / φίλους; Matt 6:1 ἐλεημοσύνην / δικαιοσύνην; 6:24 ἢ / εἰ; 7:12 ἂν / ἐὰν; 7:14 ὅτι / τι / ὅστι)•Spelling variants affecting the personal pronouns, of which there are at least 10 of variants of this kind (5:11, 5:20, 6:9, 6:11, 6:14 2x, 6:15 2x, 6:19, 6:26)
Total in the SotM=32
The most significant of all these variants is at 6:1, Scrivener’s TR ἐλεημοσύνην and Beza1598’s δικαιοσύνην. This variant does more than simply substitute one word for another; it has interpretive implications for the rest of the context. In the case of the δικαιοσύνην reading, it serves as a general prohibition and introduction to the subject of pious actions for the sake of human observation. It is not only an introduction for the entirety of chapter 6, but it broadly introduces the more specific matters of charitable giving (6:2–4), prayer (6:5–15), and fasting (6:16–18).13 Indeed, in every one of these sections, Jesus begins each them with ὅταν at the start and concludes each with some form of “your Father in secret” (τῷ πατρί σου τῷ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ). This will also bear out why the omission of these articles at 6:6 and 6:18 is a significant variant, as they distinguish between taking the phrase “in secret” to be adjectival to “your Father” rather than adverbial. On the other hand, if the TR rendering of ἐλεημοσύνην is retained, then 6:1 is not an introduction but simply a part of the mercy giving piety of 6:2–4. However, this disrupts the flow and function of the rhetorical markers in the SotM.
The other most notable variant is the Complutensian Polyglot’s (CompPoly) omission of the Lord’s Prayer doxology at 6:13. The marginal note seems to explain their reason for omission based on internal evidence as it was likely use for liturgical settings. Additionally, the CompPoly also omitted ἐν τῷ φανερῷ at 6:18. At 6:29, Beza’s 1598 edition omitted the adjective ἓν, which disrupts the sense.
Category II: Minor variants (“affect the sense”)
•Variants that grammatically affecting the Greek verb
oThe omission of the subjunctive marker ἂν at 5:18
oThe lengthened thematic vowel changing from present indicative to present subjunctive (5:29 σκανδαλίζει / σκανδαλίζῃ; 6:19 θησαυρίζετε / θησαυρίζητε)
oThe shortened thematic vowel changing from aorist subjunctive to future indicative or aorist imperative (5:19 διδάξῃ / διδαξει; 5:20 περισσεύσῃ / περισσεύσει; 5:21 φονεύσῃ / φονεύσει; 5:31 ἀπολύσῃ / ἀπολύσει; 5:32 ἀπολύσῃ / ἀπολύσει; 5:32 γαμήσῃ / γαμήσει; 5:36 ὀμόσῃς / ὀμόσεις; 6:34 μεριμνήσητε / μεριμνήσετε; 7:6 δῶτε / δότε)
oSecond aorist form confusion (5:29, 30 βάλε / βάλλε; 7:5 2x’s ἔκβαλε / ἔκβαλλε & ἐκβαλεῖν / ἐκβαλλεὶν;14 7:6 βάλητε / βάλλετε15 )
oFrom accusative plural participle to either dative plural participle or 3rd person plural indicative (5:44 μισοῦντας / μισούσιν)
oPersonal ending change (5:30 ἀπόληται/ἀπόλητε; 6:26 διαφέρετε/διαφέρεται; 6:34 μεριμνήσητε/μερμνήσει)
oGenitive to accusative (5:28 αὐτῆς / αὐτήν)
•Spelling variants that could affect or confuse the semantic meaning of a word (5:44 καταρωμένους from καταράομαι rendered καθαρωμένους could be confused with various καθαρ rooted words; Matt 6:6 ταμιεῖόν inner/storeroom vs. ταμεῖόν hidden/secret room {according to BDAG}; 7:2 ἀντιμετρηθήσεται / μετριθήσετει; 7:26 ὁμοιωθήσεται / ὁμιωθήσεται;16 7:28 συνετέλεσεν / ἐτέλεσεν)
Total in the SotM=28
Category III: Inconsequential variants (“not of great significance”)
•Non-translatable omissions of the article (6:1, 6:15, 6:29)•Non-sensical spelling or spelling error (5:28, 5:43; 6:15, 6:16, 6:23, 6:27, 6:30; 7:5, 7:8, 7:9, 7:10, 7:13, 7:15)•Variegated spelling or crasis (5:23; 6:24; 7:25 2x)•Transposition that does not affect meaning at 5:20, 5:36•Final nu and sigma (not included in the count and marked differently in the text and apparatus).
Those interested in studying the development, progression, regression, and refinement of the TR tradition will pay attention to these variants in this category. However, this is the least relevant for text variant discussions.
Total in the SotM=22
Final Observations
The TR tradition is a very stable and consistent tradition. In fact, in the more quotable portions of the SotM, such as the Beatitudes, there were virtually no variants of any kind. However, I was surprised by my findings. If we do not include in the counting those instances of final nu and sigma in Category III (which I did not above), I would have anticipated that this third category would have been the largest and the major, translatable variants (Category I) to be the smallest. Yet it was the opposite! By my counting, there were 32 Category I variants, 28 Category II variants, and 22 Category III variants just within the SotM!
Even further, I was most shocked by the 32 Category I variants. That is far more than I anticipated, and perhaps more than we were led to believe by those TR advocate quoted above. The SotM contains 111 verses of varying lengths. That there exists 32 major variants (Category I) and 28 minor variants that nevertheless affect the sense (Category II) leads to a staggering 60 meaningful variants of 111 verses! That means that among the TR tradition, for every 2 verses in the SotM, there is either a translatable variant or a variant that affects the Greek grammar and interpretation (even if slightly).
Indeed, these numbers are much higher than TR advocates indicate, such as those quoted above. It was said that “These variations include spelling, accents and breathing marks, word order and other minor kinds of differences,” and, “The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense.” Presumably, they would respond with the objection that most of these 60 differences in Category I and II are not truly part of the mature Protestant TR tradition. While that is the case with a good many of the variants, Beza’s various folio editions created 9 variants, 6 of which were Category I (6:1, 6:9, 6:11, 6:24, 6:29) and a single Category II variant (5:44). Of Stephanus’s 2 recorded variants, he created a single Category II variant (5:28) and a single Category III variant (6:27). And even the Elzevirs contributed a Category II variant (6:34), as Scrivener also cited. If we were to include Erasmus’s variants, that number increases exponentially. Even more so with the Complutensian Polyglot, Aldine, and Colinaeus editions, all listed in Scrivener’s explanation of the early TR tradition.
This exercise of collating the editions within the TR tradition yielded results I was not expecting. But it did confirm a suspicion—a critical apparatus for the TR would be a wonderful tool and aid for research. However, it would only come to us by an extremely laborious project of worthwhile endeavor. For a project like this to be completed, it would require the backing of a publisher or academic institution to fund those doing the slow task of such collating. For instance, I would love for someone to go through these same 22 editions and check my work on the SotM. What did I leave out? What did I incorrectly include? What did I get wrong? I do not claim inerrancy on my research.
As to what this might mean for ardent supporters of the Textus Receptus, I’m not sure. I personally do not use the TR for other text critical reasons (although my own church preaches and reads publicly from the NKJV). However, this may give pause to those who want to claim a stability for the TR on the one hand while at the same time level an instability among the critical texts on the other. Additionally, with most of the variants in the TR tradition being toward the beginning of the process (Erasmus, CompPoly, Aldine, etc.), this demonstrates the need for printed editions to continually refine itself. We should not be critical when the NA text reaches the 29th edition. This is part of the task, and those involved in the editing and printing of the TR tradition were involved with this as well.
Notes:
1 G. W. Anderson and D. E. Anderson, “The Received Text: A Brief Look at the Textus Receptus.” Accessed on 2/14/2024 and found here: https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/ReceivedText.
2Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ, The New Testament: The Greek Text Underlying the English Authorized Version of 1611 (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1985), 2nd page of the preface, unpaginated.
3 I am tremendously thankful to Elijah Hixson for helping me gain access to these editions as well as his input as which editions to consult.
4 The very inconsequential variants of final nu and sigma are marked in the apparatus with the ⸀ siglum but at the end of the word.
5 For example, between Erasmus’s 1st and 2nd editions, where many of these errors were corrected.
6 For example of editorial regression, there is the misspelling “ἀθελφοῦ” instead of the correct “ἀδελφοῦ” at Matt 7:5 in Beza1588, 1598 though correctly rendered in his earlier two editions.
7 A copy of this can be found in an 1877 edition online here: https://archive.org/details/TextusReceptusscrivener1860.
8 According to my fellow colleague and TR advocate Dr. Jeff Riddle, he said in a response to the question of “which TR” with the following clarification: “The editions which should be primarily consulted are the classic Protestant ones of Stephanus and Beza, based on Erasmus' foundational work. The Elzevir editions should also be consulted, but with the understanding that they appeared after most of the translations of the TR had first been made into the modern languages of Europe.” Accessed here http://www.jeffriddle.net/2019/11/wm-140-responding-to-which-tr-objection.html on 2/14/2024.
9 Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the Use of Biblical Students, Fourth Edition, 2 vols. (Cambridge: George Bell & Sons, 1894), 2:175–188.
10 Beza’s first major edition of 1557 was of the entire Bible and printed in Latin.
11 The omission of the article at Matt 6:6 would make the prepositional phrase adverbially related to the imperative as “pray in secret” rather than as an articular attributive “your father in secret.”
12 Same matter of omitting the article as Matt 6:6 (see footnote).
13 So Davies and Allison who wrote, “This verse [6:1] announces, through a negative formulation, the major theme of 6.2–16, 16–18: δικαιοσύνη is not to be done before others in order to be seen by them.” W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., Matthew 1-7, ICC (London: T & T Clark International, 1988), 575. See also John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 273–74. For a more in depth treatment on 6:1 as the general introductory statement followed by the three specific sections of charity, prayer, and fasting; see Dale C. Allison Jr., Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 185–86.
14 These are more than incidental as Matt 6:30 and 7:19 use double lambda of the present stem and without a variant.
15 Also rendered in the indicative rather than subjunctive.
16 LSJ lists as a future form of ὄμνῡμι as ὀμιώμεθα.