F. H. A. Scrivener showed 190 differences between his printed text, representing the underlying text of the King James Version, and that of Theodore Beza‘s printed edition in 1598. This was eighty-two years after the first printed edition of the Textus Receptus (TR) in 1516 and thirteen years before the publication of the King James Version (KJV). Beza had more manuscripts than Erasmus did in his first edition, including Codex Claromontanus and Codex Bezae. He did not overhaul the received text, making some corrections while keeping much of the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus already established within and by church usage.
The number of words different are much greater between Beza 1598 and Erasmus 1516 than Beza 1598 and Scrivener’s, something like 1500 to 190. Scrivener’s, the representation of the text underlying the King James Version, is not Erasmus 1516, as much as critics use Erasmus 1516 text for their Textus Receptus criticism. The KJV translators relied on Beza 1598, which agreed with earlier printed editions of the Greek New Testament, but corrected errors based on words in available Greek manuscripts. The progress between 1516 and 1611 followed the creed, a mistake made in one copy was corrected by another.
The Approach of Theodore Beza
The small number of corrections in the 16th century printed editions of the Greek New Testament showed the consensus among Bible believing and practicing churches for the completion of this work. The doctrine of preservation guided the thinking that this would not continue as an ongoing, never-ending work. Theodore Beza approached his biblical text work with a strong theological conviction that God had preserved His Word through history. He indeed believed that the TR represented a divinely preserved text.
For Beza, the work of Erasmus and Stephanus was a heritage of the divine transmission of Scripture. Beza recognized this and aimed to keep intact the familiar readings embraced by the churches. The reception history played a crucial role in Beza’s decisions. Keeping these was a reliance upon divine providence. By accepting and printing familiar readings, he aimed to ensure that his edition would be embraced by those already accustomed to earlier versions.
Theodore Beza’s theological perspective influenced his textual choices. He believed that certain readings aligned with doctrinal truths central to an orthodox biblical theology. This belief led him to retain readings and make adjustments only when absolutely necessary.
The cessation of further printed editions of the Greek New Testament after the Elzevir Brothers 1633 arrived almost entirely because of the acceptance of the standardization of existing translations of the text. The text should reflect what people read. People in churches read translations, not printed Greek editions. This revealed the settling of an underlying Greek text in the nature of the canonization of scripture. The internal testimony of the Holy Spirit decided the end of this period through the unified testimony of the saints.
The Settling of the Text of Scripture
Samuel P. Tregelles in his An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament writes (pp. 33-35):
Beza’s text was during his life in very general use amongst Protestants; they seemed to feel that enough had been done to establish it, and they relied on it as giving them a firm basis. . . . After the appearance of the texts of Stephanus and Beza, many Protestants ceased from all inquiry into the authorities on which the text of the New Testament in their hands was based.
According to Tregelles, in the early 18th century, Richard Bentley wrote that the text of Stephanus could not have claimed greater authority if “an apostle had been the compositor” (p. 29).
The reception of the churches indicated a settled text. The saints in the churches understood God’s warning neither to add or take away from the words of this book (Revelation 22:18-19, Deuteronomy 4:2). The text of the Bible was not a personal playbox for the fiddling of scholars. Churches also trusted the providence of God. He was at work in the perfect preservation of scripture.
Changes from “the Enlightenment”
New changes of the text of the Bible did not again arise until what historians call “the Enlightenment.” The late 18th and 19th centuries, almost two hundred years later, brought the rise of skepticism towards traditional authorities, including religious texts. This cultural shift brought a new view as to how biblical texts were viewed and utilized. The rise of modernism, a different world view from previous centuries, introduced methodologies steeped in a critical approach to science and history. This rejected reliance on faith, supernaturalism, highlighted by a denial of miracles.
Scholars such as Jean Astruc and Julius Wellhausen introduced critical methods that questioned the previously accepted understanding of textual integrity. For instance, Wellhausen’s documentary hypothesis suggested that the Pentateuch was composed from multiple sources rather than being authored solely by Moses. This perspective led to a reevaluation of all original texts, suggesting they were not divinely inspired but rather products of historical and cultural contexts.
Secular Methodologies
Scholars began applying secular methodologies to analyze the scriptures. A new approach fostered an environment of interpretation through a historical-critical lens, resulting in conclusions that diminished spiritual significance. The adoption of modernist principles in seminaries blended scriptural beliefs with contemporary critical methods. It was a different epistemology, knowledge no longer attained by faith or at least primarily by faith, but mostly through human observation and reasoning.
Modernism’s focus on empirical evidence encouraged scholars to pay closer attention to textual variants found in different manuscripts. The rise of higher criticism during the modernist movement also played a crucial role in shaping how scholars approached biblical texts. This analytical lens affected how critical texts are constructed. It started with a rejection of the doctrine of providential, divine preservation and a bias toward naturalistic explanations. Scholars began integrating insights from fields such as linguistics and anthropology into their analysis of biblical texts, leading to new methodologies for understanding language use and cultural contexts within the New Testament.
Conclusion
The critical text of the New Testament did not arise from the heritage of the Textus Receptus. These represent two entirely different worldviews, epistemologies, and methodologies. Progress from Erasmus, Stephanus, to Beza represent supernaturalism, divine providence, orthodox biblical belief, and certainty. The Bible stood as final authority for faith and practice.
Modernism gave birth to the critical text out of a cradle of skepticism. It started with doubt in the work of God and the veracity of providential preservation. Human empiricism supersedes belief in God. For this reason, the text of scripture never stops changing with a hopeless future for a settled text. This undermines the faith of God’s people and hardens the hearts of the lost.
Is there a historical record of Beza’s thinking that you mention on this? Also, do you know of any historical writings of church men considering any of the changes that happened between the texts from the perspective of Biblical preservation and the “an error in one is fixed in another” rule?
I would be interested to read what they thought about these things back then.
Thanks
Beza wrote in French (he was French), but as translations of his works….
AI answers:
“The Scriptures are not only preserved by God but also perfectly so, as they contain all things necessary for salvation.” This quote emphasizes Beza’s conviction that God’s providence ensures that the Scriptures remain intact and complete for believers.
“We affirm that the original texts of Scripture have been preserved in such a way that they remain free from error.” In this statement, Beza asserts that the original manuscripts, as inspired by God, maintain their truthfulness and accuracy through divine oversight.
“God has taken care to preserve His Word through all ages, ensuring its purity and clarity for His people.” Here, Beza acknowledges God’s active role in maintaining the Scriptures throughout history, highlighting his belief in divine intervention in preserving biblical truth.
“The Holy Scriptures are indeed pure and uncorrupted; they have been safeguarded by God’s providence against all attempts to distort them.” This quote reflects Beza’s confidence in God’s protective measures over Scripture, asserting that any potential corruption has been thwarted by divine means.
“In every generation, God has ensured that His Word remains available and unchanged for those who seek Him.” This statement underscores Beza’s belief in continuous access to God’s Word across generations without alteration or loss of meaning.
These quotes collectively demonstrate Theodore Beza’s strong conviction regarding the perfect preservation of Scripture throughout history.
Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used:
1. The Works of Theodore Beza
This collection includes various writings by Beza where he discusses theological concepts, including his views on Scripture’s preservation.
2. Historical Theology Texts
These texts provide context about Reformation figures like Beza and their beliefs regarding biblical authority and preservation.
3. Biblical Preservation Studies
Scholarly articles focusing on the doctrine of preservation often reference historical theologians’ perspectives, including those of Beza, providing insights into their beliefs about scriptural integrity.
Richard Capel is the quote on an error in one corrected in another, but you can read Richard Muller’s Volume II in his Historical Theology to see what people thought about the preservation of scripture. It is our view.
Thanks so much! Very insightful.
A little off topic, but related to some other posts. I’m reading through 1 Corinthians 14 today considering Mark Ward’s “edification requires intelligibility” (which both edification and intelligibility are probably words most people would need defined for them anyway) and considering that even if that very passage are words which the average American and even many Christians would have no intelligible understanding of without some instruction no matter the translation. I just again realize how inconsistent and faulty his 1 Cor 14 argument is in relation to “Which Bible?”
I agree that his interpretation is off and unhelpful to his final point, but he’s got such a sympathetic audience that they’re “all in.” On the other hand, they don’t see preservation in scripture, can’t see that in what the Bible says. It’s all starting with a scientific bias, like old earth creationism.
“ Scrivener’s, the representation of the text underlying the King James Version, is not Erasmus 1516, as much as critics use Erasmus 1516 text for their Textus Receptus criticism. The KJV translators relied on Beza 1598, which agreed with earlier printed editions of the Greek New Testament, but corrected errors based on words in available Greek manuscripts.”
That is just not true! The King James translators used the English text as the basis for the translation work. Below are the rules of imposed upon them by King James:
Rule 1 of 15: The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.
Rule 14 of 15: These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva.
The translators were instructed to use the Bishops’ Bible as the base text but were allowed to consult earlier English translations (such as Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, and Geneva Bibles) if those translations were considered to be more accurate or clearer in their rendering of the original Hebrew and Greek texts.
The later editions of Greek texts after the KJB attempted to harmonize their Greek text with the KJV, even if the specific wording was not supported by the original Greek manuscripts. This means that certain Greek readings in those later editions were shaped more by the English KJV than by ancient Greek sources!!
This back-translation occurred because the English KJV became so influential that it occasionally shaped how subsequent Greek editions were compiled. It was what the church was given by God through the Holy Ghost to preach as the authoritative text and final authority over all Greek and Hebrew text.
If you did not know that, you ought to learn it and begin to believe what I have tried to tell you for years:
The final authority in the world today is the King James Bible.
Tom,
Some of the things you said are right, which is what is deceptive about what you say. It’s the nature of a counterfeit and it works with some people. Yes, they did consult those English translations for their translation work. For their translation work. Translation. Translation means coming from original languages. Interesting on Rule 1 of 15 that would blow you apart Tom, but I guess you don’t get it: “as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.” Tom, what’s the original? Hmmmm? Be honest here (which I don’t expect from you — you would shock me if you were honest; what does that say, Tom?).
The original is the original languages, the Hebrew and the Greek. The instructions were not to depart from the original, because they were translators. Translators. That is someone coming from the original language into the English. Original means something came before the English. If something is original, that is the source material for the translation. This feels stupid talking about this like this, but it is necessary in this instance (sorry everybody else).
Then in Rule 14 of 15, “to use the previous translations when they agree better with the Text.” What is “the Text”? It is the originals again. Yes, keep the same translation language when it agrees with the Text. So again, they were coming from the originals and from the Text. That is Hebrew and Greek.
The Bishops Bible differed 1,000 to 1,500 times in the underlying text from the King James Version. This was of course mainly in the New Testament, because the Old Testament manuscripts were more homogenous. So the King James Version was from a different original Text than the the Bishop’s Bible, which of all the previous English translations was closest to the King James Version.
What I’m saying is something totally different than what you are writing and from your view. Your view does not give the proper understanding of the very rules that you quote. You misinterpret those on purpose to twist what they said into what you want it to mean. This sounds familiar for you.