Many who looked at part one probably did not read it, but scrolled through the post to see if I answered the question, just to locate the particular Textus Receptus (TR) edition. They generally don’t care what the Bible says about this issue. They’ve made up their minds. Even if they hear a verse on the preservation of scripture, they will assume it conforms to textual criticism in some way. I’m sure they were not satisfied with the answer that the Words of God were perfectly preserved in the TR. That is what I believe, have taught, and explained in that first post. However, I wasn’t done. I’m going to give more clarity for which I didn’t have time or space.
In part one I said that I believe that scripture teaches that God preserved Words, not paper, ink, or a perfect single copy that made its way down through history. God made sure His people would have His Words available to live by. It is akin to canonicity, a doctrine that almost every knowing believer would say he holds. Some believers don’t know enough to say what they think on canonicity. I’ve written a lot about it on this blog, but normally professing Christians relate canonicity to the sixty-six books of the Bible, a canonicity of books. Scripture doesn’t teach a canonicity of books. It is an application of a canonicity of Words.
Along with the thoughts about the perfect preservation of scripture, perhaps you wondered if at any one time, someone would or could know that he held a perfect book in his hands. From what we read in history, that is how Christians have thought about the Bible. I remember first hearing the verbal plenary inspiration of scripture and thinking that it related to the Bible I used. Any other belief would not have occurred to me.
The condition of all of God’s Words perfectly in one printed text has been given the bibliological title of a settled text. Scripture also teaches a settled text to the extent that it was possible someone could add or take away from the Words (Rev 22:18-19; Dt 12:32), that is, they could corrupt them. You cannot add or take away a word from a text that isn’t settled. The Bible assumes a settled text. This is scripture teaching its doctrine of canonicity.
When we get to a period after the invention of the moveable type printing press, believers then expressed a belief in a perfect Bible in the copies (the apographa) that they held. They continued printing editions of the TR that were nearly identical, especially next to a standard of variation acceptable to modern critical text proponents. I’m not saying they were identical. I own a Scrivener’s Annotated Greek New Testament. However, all the Words were available to believers.
Editions of the Textus Receptus were published by various men in 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1534, 1535, 1546, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1565, 1567, 1580, 1582, 1589, 1590, 1598, 1604, 1624, 1633, 1641, and 1679. I’m not going to get into the details of these, but several of these editions are nearly identical. The generations of believers between 1516 and 1679 possessed the Words of God of the New Testament. They stopped publishing the Greek New Testament essentially after the King James Version became the standard for the English speaking people. Not another edition of the TR was published again until the Oxford Edition in 1825, which was a Greek text with the Words that underlie the King James Version, similar to Scrivener’s in 1894. Believers had settled on the Words of the New Testament.
I believe the underlying Hebrew and Greek Words behind the King James Version represent the settled text, God’s perfectly preserved Words. I like to say, “They had to translate from something.” Commentators during those centuries had a Hebrew and Greek text. Pastors studied an available original language text to feed their churches. This is seen in a myriad of sermon volumes and commentaries in the 16th to 19th centuries.
Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit would lead the saints to receive the Words the Father gave the Son to give to them (Jn 16:13; 17:8). Because believers are to live by every one of them, then they can know with certainty where the canonical Words of God are (Mt 4:4; Rev 22:18-19) and are going to be judged by them at the last day (Jn 12:48). This contradicts a modern critical text view, a lost text in continuous need of restoration.
True believers received the TR itself and the translations from which it came. They received the TR and its translations exclusively. Through God’s people, the Holy Spirit directed to this one text and none other.
Thank you for writing. Very helpful. I have your book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, I intend to read it soon. This two parter, among other articles here from both you and Thomas Ross, have helped me significantly in understanding what I believed by faith, before fully understanding it. Faith that the King James Bible represents the settled Word of God came natural to me immediately after salvation. Equally natural, was a sense of corruption associated with all other modern Bible versions. I did not grow up in a Baptist Church. I had no cultural association with the King James Bible before I was saved. I had never heard of Ruckman. My experience was my natural sense immediately after I was born again by faith. No one had to twist my arm. I ran to the King James Bible and abandoneded all others, enduring with gladness mockery and scorn from friends, knowing what I had was far more precious. Within one year of being saved I was of out of my former Church and attending full time an Independent Baptist that only used the King James Bible in English. Praise God, thank you again, and may God bless you both.
Glad you’re reading here.
Sometimes, the “critical text proponents” like to ask either of these questions as an attempt to create a chink in the armor: what edition or what printing of the TR is perfect; or else, what edition or printing of the KJV is perfect. One needs to explain that buried within this question is somewhat of a misconception, although not entirely. It’s not the typesetting of the words on the page that is perfect, but the words themselves, as an abstract idea, preserved in this world physically through God’s all-knowing providence.
The obvious reality from looking at the TR editions themselves from a ground level is their uniformity. Proving that the God who inspired these words for their original recipients is still at work today keeping them here for us to see, and to know if one will know them.
Equally as important, according to 2 Peter 1:20, John 14:16-17, John 16:13, Acts 5:32, 1 John 5:10 and 1 Corinthians 2:13, is the fact that the Lord is our Teacher, present to give an accurate understanding of His word, without which guidance we would be adrift in private interpretations, as we see the world today currently is as it is lost.
Critical text theorists don’t grasp either of these things, or the fact that the word of truth is self evident, thus giving canonicity and mutual congruence of belief about the truth, centered so importantly as it is on the words themselves. But if they would take Jesus’ words to heart, that all they that are of the truth hear His voice (John 18:37b) then they would probably be able to understand. Or if they took what Paul said seriously, which is that through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. (Ephesians 2:18)
With that in mind, the fact that some TR editions differ is not a hindrance at all. The vast majority of these differences, after all, occur in the editions before Stephanus’ 1550 edition, and whether one looks before or only after this edition, the vast majority of these differences are simply spelling differences that have no effect on the resultant translation. The fact is that all of the TR editions after the 1550 edition were incredibly meticulous and exact with regards to many of the details of the written Koine Greek, and this is the source of most of the differences. The fact that the editions, made by various people, were each so close, while at the same time still being independent projects that in no way depended on each other, just shows how little variation could be found, even on the written forms.
There was real textual critical work to be done with the TR, to be sure, but we benefit from the advantage of others’ labors in this field of study which increasingly converged to a single point, proving that the received text is indeed a single tradition. This is still an interesting field to study, but that is simply the basic facts. This is in vast contrast with the results of eclectic and mixed-text building, which is being done with increasing abandon by most translators today: it is departing and tending toward greater corruption. Between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, for example, it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two manuscripts differ, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree. And compared to the received text, they have removed, modified or added about 9970 individual Greek words. That is a lot of words. It’s about 7% of the New Testament, or an average of 15.4 words on every page of the Greek New Testament. Rather than inevitably arriving at a single point of truth, the eclectic texts and the ever-expanding number of translations that they are based on are accruing yet more and more changes, more variants, more combinations of variants. Headed away from the truth, into darkness.
The Westcott and Hort text is 1952 words shorter than the received text, while the Nestle/Aland text is 2886 words shorter than the received text. It’s a good thing our received texts never have and never will change like that, because they have the property of immutability of God’s word. Hebrews 6:18.
Hi Kent,
Your two posts on this subject were posted on the Textus Receptus Facebook group and a man named Will Kinney posted on there, to be clear, I certainly disagree with his position as he is essentially a Riplingerite, but I am curious how you would respond:
” I read both parts and it seems to me, that though he tries to deny it, he really is on the same page as today’s multi-conflicting Bible agnostics, though to a lesser degree.
He talks about God preserving his words, yet he refers us to several different TR editions that DO differ among themselves textually, though to a far lesser degree than the Vatican version promoters.
Is it “serving the LORD” (Beza, Scrivener) or “serving the TIME” (Stephanus)?
And then, of course, he would still run into the problem of being his own authority when it comes to how exactly he wants to translate it, even when he is using the same Greek text. Example – it is “superstitious” or “very religious” or “hasting unto the coming of the Lord” or “speeding up the coming of the Lord”, or “the whole world lieth in wickedness” or “the whole world is under the control of the Evil One”.
Does his position allow him to tell us up front and clearly which New Testament is inerrant or 100% true? I don’t think it does.”
Hi Jordan,
From what I read in your quote of Will Kinney, his best argument, like the apostates of 2 Peter 3:3-4, is scoffing, which is what “Bible agnostics” is. It’s the best kind of argumentation that George Calvas here used and uses, would continue to use if we published his comments. It’s what you use when you’ve got nothing.
Kinney also takes the same argumentation as critical text advocates, who deny preservation. Because of textual variants, he can’t say that the Bible was preserved. You hear that from him. It wasn’t preserved as described in the Bible if the English King James Version is it. English didn’t exist for hundreds of years after the New Testament was complete. That means they didn’t have the Bible then. The explanation that answers the question of “Which TR?” could and should go longer than what I wrote, but I wrote a cliffs notes version of it.
Some of what he wrote, I don’t understand — this part, “he would still run into the problem of being his own authority when it comes to how exactly he wants to translate it, even when he is using the same Greek text.” Did the King James translators have divine authority and that’s why their translation is correct? The Church of England represents divine authority from God, something like the divine right of kings? I have never heard that before. That’s a big discussion, but just from what he’s writing, Will Kinney has a very odd and unbiblical position on authority, especially as it relates to translation. I’m preparing for more name-calling. Maybe we could just have a duel.
I would like it if he would deal with my bibliology. Am I teaching what scripture does about its own preservation? If I am, how does that apply? I also have historical theology behind what I’m teaching. This is how true believers have taught on preservation of scripture for centuries. A difference between TR editions doesn’t mean that God didn’t preserve His Words. Believers agreed on what those words are and I ended my second part with that, the words underlying the KJV, identical to what Edward Hills wrote as a position. The argument for knowing what the words are with certainty is what I call the canonicity argument, that I have in one chapter in our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them. God the Holy Spirit used the churches to agree on what the words were/are.
Kinney didn’t show or reveal how it was that I didn’t have certainty about the text of scripture. He said I didn’t. He pronounced I didn’t. But he didn’t prove that.
Yes,
Will Kinney’s big thing that he does with people is say “Can you show us where we can see a copy of the inerrant bible you claim to believe in” as an emotionally charged tactic.He frames his discussions in a way designed to make someone out to be a “bible agnostic” unless they affirm the KJV as the only inerrant bible. If you were to try and profess faith in any edition of the TR he will simply point out differences between the KJV and the TR and why he thinks the KJV is superior to all editions of the TR, he also is quick to point out that Scrivener’s text did not exist until the end of the 1800s. Will claims we are believe in a inerrant “phantom” bible if we believe for example that the pure words of God are preserved among the TR corpus of text.
Will Kinney literally believes that there was no single location where the Bible was found in one singular location until 1611 with the KJV, I have pressed him several times on this issue. Essentially, in his own view, preservation means one singular perfect copy in my language right in front of me, but even in his own view that did not exist until 1611. It’s a very strange cognitive dissonance that seems impossible to break through.
Unfortunately, Kinney is probably the most prolific writer defending the KJV today online and I fear that many people will be deceived by his Anti-Hebrew and Greek rhetoric.
Sorry, that should have said “He does not believe all of the pure words were in one single location until 1611”
Hello Jordan!
You did not provide verse references for your questions about translation, so I can’t address the Beza vs. Stephanus one you brought up.
It is not “using one’s own authority” when evaluating whether a translation is accurate. God revealed Himself in Greek and Hebrew words that can be understood by using the ordinary rules of language, the same types of rules we use in English. Those rules in Greek and Hebrew determine what a correct translation is where there is no variant. Thus, for example, the reason “too superstitious” is better than “very religious” in Acts is because it is supported by the context. It is NOT correct just because it is in the KJV (although I have a very strong knee-jerk reaction to defend the English of the KJV). It is correct because of the context of the passage.
Thanks.
Hi KJB1611. With regards to translating as “too superstitious” I think this word is the correct translation for the simple fact that the English language itself is defined by the 1611 “Authorized” translation. That’s why Samuel Johnson kept mentioning it in his word definitions for his 1755 Dictionary, as well as Noah Webster in his 1828 American English Dictionary. Maybe we should study what they had to say about what these English words mean. I would rather use the accepted definition of these words rather than attempt to redefine them myself.
He was talking about Romans 12:11, which is one eight variances that I would consider substantial between the Greek of Stephanus and Beza (a good tool for checking this: https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Parallel/43001001/TRS/BEZA/ELZEVIR)
In Romans 12:11, the word “καιρῷ” (time) is written by Stephanus and Erasmus, but Beza places “κυρίω” (Lord) which he judged as coming from a stronger manuscript basis. And the KJV followed suit.
Just for reference, as this is a short list, the other 7 variances that are like this are as follows:
– Luke 17:36, omitted entirely by Stephanus except in his 4th 1551 edition, but included by Beza
– John 16:33, Stephanus has “ἔχετε” (“have” tribulation) while Beza has “ἕξετε” (“shall have” tribulation)
– 1 Timothy 1:4, Stephanus has “οἰκονομίαν” (dispensation) while Beza has “οἰκοδομίαν” (edification/edifying/building)
– Hebrews 9:1, Stephanus has “σκηνή” (tabernacle) while Beza omits this word
– James 2:18, Stephanus has “ἐκ” (by) while Beza has “χωρὶς” (without)
– 1 John 2:23, Beza has “ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει” (but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also), while Stephanus omits
– 1 John 3:16, Beza has “тοῦ Θεοῦ” (of God) while Stephanus omits
In all eight of these cases, which are the most substantial of their type, the KJV translators follow Beza (I don’t include Revelation 16:5 in this list, because it is simply an expanded nomen sacrum in Beza’s work as compared to Stephanus). But they didn’t do so indiscriminately. Perhaps the most notable example is in John 8:6, where they include the phrase “μη προσποιουμενος” or “as though he heard them not” in John 8:6, which is actually in neither of those TR, but this text is still included in some other original sources, such as Elias Hutter’s 1599 Nuremberg Polyglot.
Despite this, the KJV translators expressed in the apparatus of the 1611 what one might consider uncertainty, over exactly three places in the New Testament. In Luke 17:36, already discussed above, they included a footnote saying “This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies”. However, on the issue of Luke 17:36 later textual criticism has confirmed its place, so there is no doubt of its inclusion today, nor has there been for a long time. Also, the ending words of John 8:6 and 1 John 2:23 as noted above are italicized in the KJV, presumptively for this reason. Knowing is half the battle.
Interestingly, though, none of these authors who differed here expressed any uncertainty about 1 John 5:7, or Revelation 21:24 or 22:19, which are passages which are often attacked today.