Which Edition of the Textus Receptus ? - Glenn Conjurske

Which Edition of the Textus Receptus?

by Glenn Conjurske

For a quarter of a century the King James Only advocates have been telling us that “the Textus Receptus” is God’s preserved text of the New Testament, and that it is “perfect and without error.” The originators of this doctrine never troubled themselves with the fact that there are numerous different editions of the Textus Receptus, none of them containing precisely the same text. But during the course of a quarter of a century this fact has been forced upon their attention by “the enemies of the truth,” that is, by the saints of God who do not believe these modern notions.

Now there are many such facts which have been forced upon the attention of the King James Only people. Their first reaction to these facts has generally been to indignantly deny those facts, while they call it rationalism to face them. As to that charge, we can grant them that it is rational to face facts, while it is certainly irrational to deny them. But these folks have found these facts to be stubborn things. They do not evaporate when they are ignored or denied. We may perhaps encompass the Rock of Gibraltar with a heavy fog, and go on denying the rock’s existence so long as the fog remains, but whenever a ray of light manages to penetrate the fog, we shall find the rock there still.

Now during the lapse of a quarter of a century, many such rays of light have been forced through the fog, and again and again the King James Only men have been forced to acknowledge the truth of the facts which stand against their system. But alas, they have usually done this in a fashion which has done them no honor, for instead of giving up the errors which those facts overturn, they have rather refined and modified their system, so as to endeavor to accommodate the facts, while they hold the error still.

While many of those refinements are nothing more than subtle sophistries, others of them are frank and honest endeavors to deal with the inconsistencies of the system. Yet I have observed that every one of the latter sort of those refinements renders the system both more reasonable and less reasonable. More reasonable, in that it faces and acknowledges facts which it had previously ignored or denied, but less reasonable in that every such acknowledgement has rendered the whole system more self-contradictory, and therefore rendered its adherents less excusable for holding it. It has often happened that in refining this system in order to accommodate the facts, they have actually (though of course unwittingly) given up the foundation upon which the system is built, while they yet retain the system which they have built upon it. Let it be understood that the only foundation which has ever been professed for this system is the supposed Bible doctrine of the preservation of the true text of Scripture, and it is precisely this doctrine of preservation which has often been given up in order to accommodate the facts concerning the Textus Receptus and the King James Version.

From the beginning of the King James Only movement, its adherents have insisted that “the Textus Receptus” is the preserved text of the New Testament, just as though “the Textus Receptus” consisted of a single edition, always the same, and easily identified. This was mere ignorance—-as much so as if we were to speak in the same manner of “Webster’s Dictionary.” There might be some excuse for this in a schoolboy, who had never seen but one edition of “Webster’s Dictionary,” but if serious adults—-if preachers and teachers—-set up “Webster’s Dictionary” as the perfect standard of the English language, we must know, “Which edition?” Webster’s first? His last? The latest edition which has come from the press under his name, though he has been long dead? If “Webster’s Dictionary” is to be insisted upon as the standard of perfection, we must have an answer to this question, or the whole business is nonsense. If the teachers of the English language were to set up a “Which Dictionary? Society,” and flood the land with bitter controversies by their constant asseverations that “Webster’s Dictionary” is the only true dictionary, while totally ignoring the fact that there are numerous differing editions of “Webster’s Dictionary,” we should judge them to be either without sense or without honesty—-and certainly without excuse.

And so exactly if “the Textus Receptus” is insisted upon as the perfect standard—-for it is a fact, as stubborn as Gibraltar, that there are numerous editions of “the Textus Receptus,” none of them identical. For years the advocates of a perfect Textus Receptus ignored this question. Some of them still do. When I have asked of them which edition is the true one, I have been told it is not a fair question. One good brother asked in response if I would seriously want the present shallow generation to decide which edition is perfect! A good question, truly! Nevertheless, since it is the present shallow generation which asserts that “the Textus Receptus” is perfect, they certainly have an obligation—-to themselves if not to the rest of us—-to determine exactly what it is which they think is perfect. But most of the advocates of a perfect Textus Receptus, throughout most of the time that these modern doctrines have existed, have simply ignored this question. Most of them have doubtless been unaware of its existence. They have been as unaware that there were varying editions of the Textus Receptus, as they were that the King James Version does not completely agree with any of them. It belongs to the later refinements of the movement to specify any particular edition as the true Textus Receptus.

And, as is usual with these folks, those who have specified a particular edition as the true text have actually given up the foundation of their system in order to do so. It must be understood that the common practice of these men is to write, revise, or invent history just as their doctrine requires. When they have been pressed, therefore, to identify the actual Textus Receptus which is “God’s preserved text,” they consulted nothing except the exigencies of their doctrine. It would not do to specify any of those editions which have commonly been known as “the Textus Receptus,” for the King James Version does not completely agree with any of them—-and complete agreement is a necessity when we insist that both Textus Receptus and King James Version are infallible, or “perfect and without error.” If they were to specify any edition of “the Textus Receptus” as perfect, they must have one which agrees with the King James Version. Now it just so happens that there is a Greek text which agrees (almost agrees, at any rate) with the King James Version. It was constructed on purpose to represent the Greek text which underlies the King James Version. This was the work of F. H. A. Scrivener, performed in 1881, for the purpose of exhibiting the differences in text between the Authorized Version and the Revised. He could not use any existing edition of “the Textus Receptus” for that purpose, for the King James Version did not agree in all points with any of them. He must construct a new text. If it be said he was reconstructing the old text, the result was at any rate a text different from any which was ever known to exist from the second century to the nineteenth.

Suffice it to say that this is “the Textus Receptus” which some of the King James Only people have lately endorsed as the true one. An attempt at consistency has forced them to this choice. By this choice they hoped to extricate themselves from the mesh of self-contradictions in which their system has been involved from the beginning, in advocating a perfect text and a perfect version which often disagree with each other—-for it is a plain fact that none of those editions commonly called “the Textus Receptus” agree exactly with the King James Version. But the choice has not helped their system at all. It has rather introduced a fresh crop of inconsistencies and self-contradictions.

To begin with the most serious matter, how can they seriously maintain their doctrine of the preservation in perfection of the true text of Scripture, while they designate as the true text a text which never existed in the world before 1881—-a text which was constructed in 1881? To adopt this text as the true Textus Receptus is in fact to give up their foundation. Whatever this may be, it certainly is not “preservation.” It is absolutely inconsistent with the very idea of preservation. It is just such a stroke as manifests the usual absence of thought, which has characterized this movement from the beginning. They hold doctrines which are glaringly incompatible with the facts of history—-facts which are in their hands, and on their tongues—-and never perceive the inconsistency. Let not my brethren of the King James Only persuasion be offended at this, or raise the cry that this is harsh, or uncharitable. Let them first inquire whether it be true. These men have filled the church of God with disputes about “preservation,” without ever understanding their own doctrine. Many of them have never yet understood so much as the meaning of the word “preservation.”

That they do not know what preservation consists of is evident from numerous of their own statements. I have in my hands a book by one Dr. Kirk D. DiVietro, entitled Why Not the King James Bible!, published in 1995 by The Bible for Today. This book professes to be an answer to James R. White’s book entitled The King James Only Controversy. On page 20 DiVietro makes the following remarkable statement:

“I thought Erasmus produced the Textus Receptus! … He was restoring the Greek text…!” Restoring? How can you “restore” something which has been perfectly preserved? We have been told all these years that Erasmus was printing the text which had been preserved by God, but DiVietro obviously knows nothing of the meaning of “preservation.”

Again on page 21, “Erasmus was restoring the Greek.”

Again on page 29 (emphasis added), “The defender of the King James Bible should realize that the final form of the Greek text CAME INTO BEING with the publication of the KJV in 1611. Providence had guided the RESTORATION of the Greek text through almost 100 years of constant review and REVISION.” And this they call “preservation”? Why then do they not call a fried egg a cuckoo clock? We restore what has been corrupted, not what has been preserved. In its very nature preservation must be continuous, from beginning to end. Restoration is not preservation, and there can be no occasion to restore what has been preserved. The “final form” of anything which is preserved is just the same as it was the first day of its existence, and every day thereafter. This is the meaning of “preservation,” and is certainly necessary to their doctrine of perfect preservation.

We grant there may be such a thing as partial preservation, and subsequent restoration, but this is absolutely inconsistent with the doctrine which these men hold—-a doctrine which affirms that God’s PROMISE of preservation SECURES to his people an EXACT COPY of the true text. What then? Did this promise of God “come into being” in 1881—-or did God not keep his promises prior to 1881? It is an absolute certainty that for centuries on end before that date there was no exact copy of this supposed true text in existence on the earth. DiVietro admits this, when he says that the defender of the King James Bible “should realize” that the “final form” of the true text came into being with the publication of the King James Version. But all it amounts to is this: the King James Only people “SHOULD REALIZE” that such a notion is necessary to the maintenance of their system. They “should realize” that they must believe just such historical “facts” as support the infallibility of the King James Version.

But such language is absolutely inconsistent with the doctrine of preservation which they preach. We can have no restoration, no final form, no coming into being, of anything which has been preserved in perfection. All of this language is the full admission that there never has been any such “preservation” as these folks contend for.

But more. DiVietro is grasping at air when he asserts that the true text came into being in 1611. Where was it? Who held it in his hands? Who printed it? Who read from it? The plain fact is, it did not exist. No copy of it ever existed in the world until 1881. For 250 years, since the publication of the Elzevirs’ text, people were reading from printed books which contained a text called “the Textus Receptus,” and in all of these 250 years not one person ever saw a copy of the text which we are now informed is “God’s preserved text.” Not one person ever held it in his hands, during 250 years. Not one person ever laid eyes upon it. Neither was it hidden away in some cave or cloister. It did not exist. It “came into being”—-so says Dr. DiVietro himself—-in 1611. To this we are brought by the tomfooleries of this doctrine of preservation in perfection.

The King James Only people have been most vehement and merciless in denouncing the impiety which could suppose that the true text of Scripture existed for centuries only in a single copy hidden away in the Vatican library, or in another copy hidden away in a monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai, and never given to the world until Westcott and Hort published it in 1881. And to combat such impiety they now tell us that the true text never existed at all until Scrivener constructed it in 1881. Oh, but they will tell us God constructed it in 1611. It “came into being” in 1611—-not that 1611 will help the cause of “preservation” any better than 1881 will. But where was it in 1611? Not on paper. Not in print. Not in anybody’s hands, but only floating somewhere in the ethereal regions of non-entity. For 250 years, the people of God read from the King James Version in English, and from “the Textus Receptus” in Greek, but that Textus Receptus was not the Greek text of the King James Version. If that text existed at all, it was certainly not on the earth, but only in the mind and purpose of God. And this will not satisfy the demands of the case. The King James Only people themselves have told us times without number that it is not enough that God should know what the true text is: the church must know it also. It is not enough—-so they have often told us—-that God should have preserved the true text hidden away and forgotten in some inaccessible library. It must be a public and open preservation, of a text which is in common use in the hands of the people of God. So they have told us, times without number, when beating down the “rationalistic textual criticism” and the depraved Greek text of Westcott and Hort.

But I had always thought that what was good for the goose was good for the gander. Let them now apply their own assertions to their own position. Let them now tell us plainly that the historical existence of their own text stands upon the same foundation with Hort’s. While Hort’s text lay unused in the Vatican library for centuries, their own text did not exist at all. There was no copy of it in the world. For 250 years the saints of God read from “the Textus Receptus” ere ever a single copy existed of what we are now told is the true text. For more than a century before that, before the term “Textus Receptus” came into being, men read and translated from the Greek texts of Erasmus and Stephens and Beza, and not one of them ever saw a copy of what is now proclaimed to be the true “preserved” text. And before that, for twelve or fifteen centuries, men read from “Syrian” or “Byzantine” manuscripts, not one of which contains the same text which is now named as the true “preserved” text.

But perhaps I shall be told that I cannot hold all the King James Only people responsible for the views of Dr. DiVietro, especially since he is a very unreasonable writer, whose answers to Mr. White ignore or evade the real issue on almost every page, and indeed on almost every point. Be it so, but bear in mind that Mr. DiVietro did not publish this work himself. It was published by D. A. Waite, who is certainly one of the leading men of the movement. I find also that the most reasonable man in the King James Only camp—-so far as my acquaintance with it goes—-holds exactly the same view. I refer to David Cloud, who says, “To say that the purest copies of Scripture were hidden away until the mid-nineteenth century is an outrageous fairy tale. But I also say that this same position of faith forces me to make a decision as to exactly which version of the Traditional Text is the precise word of God. There are many manuscripts, many ancient versions; in fact, there are several editions of the Received Text itself. Which one is to be preferred? The position of faith forces me to look for the edition which was the one most blessed of God. Which one was that? The one underlying the King James Bible.”

We understand very well that his position “forces” him to this, but this only proves that the position is false. If it is an outrageous fairy tale that the purest copies of the New Testament text were “hidden away” till Tischendorf and Hort published their texts in the nineteenth century, it must be a still greater fairy tale that the true Greek text never existed on the earth at all—-not in any manuscript or printed edition whatsoever, neither in use by the people nor “hidden away,” but simply nonexistent—-until Scrivener constructed it in 1881. Yet this is the position to which the best men in this movement are “forced.”

I know, it will be said the true text did exist. It was found in the Greek manuscripts which were in common use. Yes: some parts of it in some manuscripts, some parts in others, but there was no exact copy of it existent in the world. If Brother Cloud had lived before the invention of printing, and his faith had forced him to determine which manuscript contained the precise word of God, he certainly would not and could not have chosen that text which he now claims, for there was no copy of it in the world. The “promise” which secures it now secured nothing then. If he had lived between 1516 and 1881, and had been forced by his faith to determine which printed edition contained the exact text of the New Testament, again he would not and could not have chosen the text which he has now chosen. It did not exist. There was no copy of it on earth. But if God’s promises of preservation secure to us an exact copy of the precise text of the Greek New Testament, why did not those same promises secure the same thing to all those who lived before 1881? If the promise of God secures it, why did William Tyndale and Martin Luther never lay eyes upon an exact copy of the true text of the New Testament? It would seem an obvious certainty that William Tyndale had a much greater need for an exact copy of the true text than any of us can have, yet the promise of God which secures it for us conspicuously failed to secure it for him. Tyndale, therefore, having no copy of the true text, must translate from a false one. He must read (to cite one example of a hundred), “Believe on the Lord Jesus” in Acts 16:31, instead of “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet since the beginning of this movement these men have been telling us that the true text was preserved by God and given to the Reformers at the Reformation, by whom it was translated into English, German, French, etc. No King James Only man can seriously and honestly face these questions, without giving up the whole system. So long as they speak (as Burgon did) of the general faithfulness and essential integrity of the traditional text (and of the King James Version also), all is clear and harmonious, but as soon as they bring in the notions of perfection and infallibility, the whole system becomes a mass of nonsense and self-contradictions.

But more. Though Scrivener constructed this Greek text on purpose to duplicate the text “presumed to underlie the Authorised Version,” he could not quite succeed in the endeavor. Why not? Let him inform us:

In the constructing of this Greek text (he tells us), “It was manifestly necessary to accept only Greek authority, though in some places the Authorised Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate.” The King James Only people have singled out this text as the true “Textus Receptus” for the sole reason that it is the text “presumed to underlie the Authorised Version,” but still they have missed their mark. If we contend for a perfectly preserved Greek text, and an infallible English translation of it, that Greek text and that English version must agree perfectly. They must of necessity agree completely, with no disagreement at all. Certain of the King James Only advocates have been aware that the King James Version does not completely agree with any of the standard editions commonly called “the Textus Receptus,” and they have thought to obviate this difficulty by choosing an edition which was constructed on purpose to agree with the King James Version, but even this will not serve them, for GOD in his PROVIDENCE (as I cannot doubt) has seen fit to make the thing simply impossible. No man can construct a Greek text which exactly agrees with the King James Vesion, unless he does it dishonestly—-unless he purposely falsifies the Greek text, in order to conform it to the Latin Vulgate in those places where the King James Version follows the Vulgate instead of the Greek. Scrivener, of course, would not do this, and did not. Instead, he gives us (on page 656 of the edition cited) a list of the places in which the King James Version follows the Vulgate instead of the Greek, saying, “The text of Beza 1598 has been left unchanged when the variation from it made in the Authorised Version is not countenanced by any earlier edition of the Greek. In the following places the Latin Vulgate appears to have been the authority adopted in preference to Beza. The present list is probably quite incomplete.” He plainly avows, then, that in many places he prints Beza’s text of 1598, though the King James Version does not follow it. This text, then, according to the express testimony of the man who constructed it, is not an exact representation of the text which underlies the King James Version. And yet this is the text which is now proclaimed as the true Textus Receptus, by the modern King James Only advocates. It aids their cause not one whit. It removes nothing of the inconsistencies and self-contradictions which they thought to eliminate by the stroke, while it adds a whole new crop of them, and strikes a fatal blow at their doctrine of preservation, which is the professed foundation of the whole system.

To this one of the best men in the movement confesses that he is “forced”—-though I frankly suppose it is reason which forces him there, rather than faith. But be that as it may, this is but one more illustration of the fact that the more the system is refined, in order to bring it into conformity with facts and reason, the more unreasonable it becomes. The system itself is simply hopeless. If its adherents wish to bring it into conformity with truth and facts and reason, they have but one path open to them. They must give up the modern notions of preservation, and of the infallibility of the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. They must return to the sane, sound, and solid ground which was occupied by John W. Burgon, whom they revere, but do not follow. It is quite possible to retain all that is good and true in their system—-quite possible to stand for the excellence and superiority of the King James Version—-without any of the tomfooleries and false doctrines involved in these modern notions. John W. Burgon did so, and so also does the editor of Olde Paths and Ancient Landmarks.

Glenn Conjurske