1

Introduction The is the textform of the Greek that was published with little variation in various editions from the sixteenth century through the nineteenth century. It receives its name from the Elzevir edition of 1633, which describes it as “textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum” (“the text we have, now received by all”). There are four great editors in the history of the Textus Receptus: Desiderius , who published five editions of the text between 1516 and 1535; Robert Estienne (also known as Stephanus), who published four editions between 1546 and 1551; , who published five editions between 1565 and 1604; and the House of Elzevir, which published four editions between 1624 and 1679. A fifth editor is also worthy of mention, namely Frederick H. A. Scrivener, who produced a Greek text presumed to be underlying the Authorized Version of 1611. Other lesser known and less influential editions include the Complutensian Polyglot (printed in 1514 but not published until about 1522), an edition printed by in 1534, an edition printed by Oxford Press in 1825; and the Greek text of Dr. Johann M. A. Scholz printed in the English Hexapla of 1841. This present edition has been prepared by collating Erasmus’ third edition (1522), Stephanus’ third edition (1550), Beza’s fifth edition (1598), and Elzevirs’ first edi- tion (1624). To avoid the individual idiosyncrasies of any one particular edition, whenever there is a variant between these four editions, the variant found in the majority of editions has been adopted, and the alternate reading(s) have been footnoted. (Variants in Erasmus that 2 occur outside of the variants of the other three editions have not been footnoted since there is no readily available electronic transcription of Erasmus to use for collation.) When two editions support one reading and two editions support another reading, the reading found in the 2018 edition of The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform by Robinson and Pierpont is adopted.* Apart from a few exceptions, variants based solely on accent marks, iota subscript, punctuation, or word division have neither been compared nor footnoted. In addition to the four editions mentioned above, variants found in Scrivener’s 1894 edition have also been footnoted. They were not, however, considered in establishing the text of this edition. Scrivener did not start with the Greek text but with the English text of the Authorized Version. He then pieced together his Greek text from various editions of the Textus Receptus to match as much as possible the English translation found in the Authorized Version. As a result, Scrivener’s text has great value when it comes to studying the Authorized Version, but it stands outside the mainstream of traditional Textus Receptus editions, at times adopting readings not well attested in the Textus Receptus tradition. The base text of this edition is the 2018 edition of The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform by Robinson and Pierpont, which was chosen because it is a reliable electronic text that is in the public do- main. This text was then brought into conformity with

* : One exception is Luke 7:12 in which the Robinson Pierpont text does not support either of the Textus Receptus readings. Consequently, the reading found in Scrivener’s edition is adopted. Another exception is 2 Peter 3:7 in which Robinson’s text does not directly support the adopted reading but is closer to the adopted reading than to the footnoted reading. 3

Scrivener’s edition, using Robinson’s collation of the Byzantine Textform and Scrivener. Scrivener’s appendix was then consulted to identify places where Scrivener deviates from Beza. In such instances Scrivener also identifies the variant readings of all the other Textus Receptus editions. From there Robinson’s electronic editions of Scrivener, Stephanus, and Elzevir (none of which contain accent marks, capital letters, or punctu- ation) were compared to identify further variants where Scrivener does not deviate from Beza. Finally, all of the variants identified in those four editions were checked against an electronically scanned copy of Erasmus’ orig- inal printed third edition. When necessary, variants were also compared against electronically scanned copies of the original printed editions of Beza, Elzevir, and Stephanus. As variants were identified at each step, the base text was adjusted accordingly and footnotes were added and adjusted. Finally, the base text was double- checked for accuracy using Robinson’s collation of the Byzantine Textform and Stephanus. In addition to bringing Robinson and Pierpont’s text into conformity with the Textus Receptus, it has also been modified by dropping movable nu and sigma when appropriate, adjusting punctuation when necessary, and capitalizing Χριστός, Θεός, and Κύριος when they refer to God or Jesus, as is typical in printed editions of the Textus Receptus. In this edition there are 368 footnotes documenting 380 variants. (Twelve of the notes document two vari- ants.) If Erasmus’ text were available in electronic format for collation, the number of variants would certainly increase. Among the 380 variants, Elzevir stands alone 62 times, Beza 47 times, Stephanus 32 times, and Scrivener 4

31 times. (A cursory review of Erasmus shows that he would stand alone far more than any of the other editors.) When variants are supported by more than one edition, decisions of the editors correlate with one another as demonstrated in the list below. (Please note that there is some double counting. For example, the Beza/Elzevir total includes instances where Beza and Elzevir alone support the same reading, but alsο instances where Beza, Elzevir, and Erasmus support the same reading; and where Beza, Elzevir, and Scrivener support the same reading; and where Beza, Elzevir, and Stephanus support the same reading. The same holds true for each of the groupings in the list below.) Beza/Elzevir 130 Erasmus/Stephanus 127 Beza/Scrivener 120 Elzevir/Scrivener 109 Elzevir/Stephanus 71 Erasmus/Scrivener 69 Beza/Stephanus 52 Elzevir/Erasmus 50 Scrivener/Stephanus 39 Beza/Erasmus 15 Thus we see that the editions of Beza, Elzevir, and Scrivener are similar in the readings that they support, while Erasmus and Stephanus are similar in the readings that they support. The two that exhibit the least amount of similarity are Beza and Erasmus, followed by Scrivener and Stephanus. Robert A. Boyd, Ed. May 2021 5

Η Καινή Διαθήκη The Greek Textus Receptus New Testament with manuscript annotations by Adam Boyd Public Domain Language: Ελληνικά (Greek, Ancient)

Manuscript comparison footnotes dedicated to the Public Domain by Adam Boyd. The Greek Textus Receptus New Testament is firmly in the Public Domain due to its age. 2021-05-31 PDF generated using Haiola and XeLaTeX on 10 Sep 2021 from source files dated 10 Sep 2021 14938461-2b7e-53fc-be03-d6f4d53f0f00