*Editors Note: To read part 1 of this series, you can click here: https://cbtseminary.org/textual-oddities-of-the-textus-receptus-tradition-in-1-john-part-1-printing-oddities-within-the-tr-tradition-timothy-decker/
TEXTUAL ODDITIES OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS TRADITION IN 1 JOHN
Part 2: Printing Oddities within the TR Tradition, Continued
In part 1, I spent time mainly showing how the printed editions of the TR traditions were not immune to printing errors, misspellings, and mishaps. For those who invest a great deal of stock in the preservation of the NT coinciding with the providential arrival of the moveable type-setting printed editions starting in the 16th century, there is reason to at least give pause before a conclusion can be reached about the Textus Receptus. However, the TR tradition oddities in 1 John go well beyond printing errors. Some of these strange occurrences call into question those who claim there is a great unity and consistency among the TR tradition.
While printer errors are easily observed and rather inconsequential, this next group of TR readings are very important for establishing the text of the original autograph of 1 John. Some, such as 1 John 3:16 is very important textually speaking. Others, like 1 John 2:6 are very minor and only serve to make a point about Scrivener’s 1881 edition. Lastly, when we examine the TR tradition at the notable Comma Johanneum, we see the lack of stability among the entire tradition.
Unique or nearly unique readings in the Scrivener TR
1 John 3:16
I begin with 1 John 3:16, comparing the KJV with the NKJV, both translations based upon the Textus Receptus:
The clear difference is that the NKJV did not retain the word “of God” describing “love” in the initial part of v. 16. Though we often recognize italicized words in our English translations to indicate words that are not in the original language, notice that the 1611 KJV did not do this (as it did at 1 John 2:23).
KJV1611 1 John 3:16
Neither did the 1637 Cambridge printed edition of the KJV:
KJV1637 1 John 3:16
This raises many questions: Why the difference between the KJV and the NKJV? Did the NKJV not follow the TR at this point? Or did it follow a different line in the TR tradition? Did the later revisions of the KJV recognize the weak attestation within the TR tradition and thereby render “of God” in italics?
Scrivener’s 1881 TR edition, which culminates the TR tradition and matches the places where the KJV followed Beza’s 1598 edition over Stephanus’s 1550 edition and vice versa, is the Greek text that reflects the KJV. In it, Scrivener includes the phrase “love of God”: ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ Θεοῦ. However, and this is the oddity of the TR and its tradition in 1 John, a great many of the TR editions among the tradition omit the two Greek words translated “of God” (τοῦ Θεοῦ)! Of the 28 editions I have personally transcribed, only the following contain it: the Complutensian Polyglot (1514/22) and the final three major/folio editions of Beza (1582, 1588, and 1598). That it appears in BezaMaj1598 explains how it ended up in the KJV and thus in Scrivener’s 1881 TR.
However, Beza’s first folio edition of 1565 as well as all his minor/octavo editions leave it out (1565, 1567, 1580, 1590, 1604). Additionally, all 5 of Erasmus’s editions (1516, 19, 22, 27, & 35), Aldine (1518), Gerbelius (1521), Köpfel (1524), Bebelius (1524), Colineaus (1534), Sessa (1538), the four Stephanus editions (1546, 49, 50, 51), the Elzevirs (1624, 1633) and the Oxford 1873 TR all have the shorter reading!
Interestingly, in Beza’s annotation of his 1582 edition where he first included the longer reading “the love of God,” he justifies this by both internal evidence (it corresponds with Paul at Romans 5:8) and external evidence (that he derives it from the Complutensian Polyglot).[1] Even the 1550 edition of Stephanus, containing a textual apparatus in the margin, included the Complutensian’s longer reading yet did not follow this reading in the text. Thus, Stephanus rejected it in all four of his printed editions. Beza, however, trusted the Complutensian Polyglot enough to make this change. Mind you, it was not a Greek manuscript that convinced him. In essence, what we have here is the TR tradition elongating itself.
Therefore, this longer Scrivener TR reading has only one TR witness to support it—the Complutensian Polyglot! This is troublesome, because there is still not a consensus as to the MSS that the Complutensian NT followed.[2] Some have suggested Minuscules 140, 234, and 432 were used.[3] I personally confirmed that only 234 and 432 include 1 John, and neither of them follow the longer Complutensian reading. The ECM only lists Minuscule 629 to include the longer “love of God” reading. Typically, singular readings (if indeed there is no other MS support) are to be avoided.
What prompted Beza to follow the longer reading with only the Complutensian Polyglot as his evidence? Why did he only include it in his final three folio editions but in none of his octavo editions? We may never know these answers, but they are indeed oddities in the TR tradition at 1 John.
1 John 2:6
A far less important oddity within the TR tradition is found at 1 John 2:6: ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν ὀφείλει, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησε, καὶ αὐτὸς οὕτω περιπατεῖν. The TR is often considered a less reliable text because it is far cleaner according to the rules of spelling and grammar. The assumption is that later scribes would be more likely to “fix” the Greek rather than leave it as is. To illustrate this “fixing,” I will offer an analogous English spelling matter. In English, when the indefinite article “a” precedes a word that starts with a vowel such as “apple,” the article changes to “an”—ergo, “an apple” not “a apple.” So likewise with Greek. It formally does something similar with a final sigma when preceding words that start with a vowel. However, the sigma could be removed if the following worded started with a consonant. Such is the case for the word οὕτω/οὕτως, which is how the standard NT Greek-English Lexicon of BDAG renders this entry. It can include the final sigma or leave it off.
At 1 John 2:6, the Scrivener TR of 1881 neatly reads “οὕτω περιπατεῖν” as the final sigma is left off due to the next word beginning with a consonant. However, inexplicable to me as it is, of all the editions of the TR tradition that I have transcribed, only 1 matches the spelling found in Scrivener’s 1881 edition—the 1518 Aldine edition—making this a near unique Scrivener reading (or what I call a “Scrivenerism”).
Aldine1518 1 John 2:6
Erasmus1516 1 John 2:6
This Aldine spelling is more than curious, for this 1518 edition is based on the Erasmus 1516 edition, and follows it very closely, even down to such spelling matters. Yet the Aldine 1518 edition leaves off the sigma at 1 John 2:6. According to the front matter and appendix, Scrivener had access to Aldine’s edition, though he does not cite it at this location. It could be that he arrived at this spelling on his own. Perhaps he was following some MS that support that reading. The CNTTS apparatus list Minuscules 1244 and 2197 as reading οὕτω. But the overwhelming majority of Greek MSS and TR editions have the more common οὕτως.[4] But for reasons I can only speculate, Scrivener used the corrected spelling, even though nearly the entire TR tradition is against it.
Instability w/in the TR Tradition itself
While there are a few places in the TR tradition where Scrivener’s 1881 has very little support among those of the tradition, at other times there is an inconsistency among the TR editions, making it feel shakier and less stable. Here, I’ll only mention two.
1 John 1:2–3, 5
Like the unique spelling at 2:6, many are familiar with Scrivener’s 1881 edition reading ἀγγελία (“message”) instead of ἐπαγγελία (“promise”) at 1 John 1:5, as so many other editions among the TR tradition. Of course, one could argue that the difference is minimal. However, the meaning of the word is very different, and the context does not fit “promise” at all. Additionally, at 1 John 2:25, both the noun form ἐπαγγελία as well as its verbal cognate ἐπηγγείλατο appear, while at 3:11, John switches back to ἀγγελία. Therefore, John made a distinction between the two words when he wanted to use the various terms. That makes this a more consequential inconsistency among the TR tradition.
What makes this strange in the TR tradition is that Scrivener’s 1881 TR along only one other TR edition, Colinaeus’s 1534 edition, have the ἀγγελία reading. And it is not as though the more popular TR reading of ἐπαγγελία is unattested among the manuscripts. A quick scan of the NA28 will demonstrate that. Rather, it is strange that almost universally the TR tradition followed the more standard ἐπαγγελία reading, while Scrivener and Colinaeus departed. In fact, in the appendix of Scrivener’s 1881 TR, he cites as justification for his rendering Colinaeus1534, the Latin Vulgate, and Tyndale’s “tidings” translation.[5] On the other hand, the TR tradition’s reading of “promise” (ἐπαγγελία) is said to be ceteri omnes or “all the rest.”
Now this instability gets more complicated when we stretch backwards to include 1 John 1:2–3. Those three verses alone (1 John 1:2, 3, and 5) use many words with the same -γγελία root, whether nouns or verbs. While the TR tradition at 1 John 1:2 typically reads ἀπαγγέλλομεν “we announce;” Erasmus1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, Aldine, Gerbelius, Köpfel, and Colinaeus all read καταγγέλομεν “we proclaim/announce” while the Complutensian Polyglot reads ἐπαγγέλλομεν “we publicly notify by authority.”[6] All are synonyms of one another, and the spelling is very similar. But which is it?
The next verse in 1 John 1:3, the TR tradition again reads ἀπαγγέλλομεν “we announce.” However, Beza’s last two minor (octavo) editions of 1590 and 1604 read ἐπαγγέλλομεν “we publicly notify by authority.” While Scrivener appealed to 1 John 2:25 and 3:11 to compare with 1:5, there is essentially no variation among the TR tradition there. However, there is a great deal of instability at 1 John 1:2–5 when it comes to words with the -γγελία root.
1 John 5:7–8
As a final example of the instability of the TR tradition, or maybe better its evolution, we end where we began this article—the Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7–8. I’ll not get into the MSS situation here.[7] However, as it pertains to the TR tradition, the text certainly developed over time to read as it would eventually appear in Scrivener’s 1881 TR. Below is a rough presentation of the TR tradition and critical apparatus of 1 John 5:7–8:
If this seems confusing and convoluted, that is because the TR tradition is very much so here at this notorious passage. When I say that the text evolved or developed, I mean that very literally.[8] Among the TR tradition, the well-known phrase would not appear exactly as it does in Scrivener’s final TR form until Stephanus’s fourth and final 1551 edition. And even then, later editions, such as some of Beza’s, would revert. Now if we were to ignore the final variation of the last word of v. 8 (a final nu), then we could move this earlier to the second edition of Stephanus (1549).
Most notably, the inclusion of the comma did not begin until Erasmus’s 3rd edition of 1522. And even then, it reads almost perfectly with the Latin Vulgate, omitting the articles (Latin has no articles!) and following the Latin word order. In his 4th and 5th editions, he would include the Greek articles, but still maintain the Latin word order. However, Aldine, Gerbelius, Köpfel, Colinaeus do not include the Trinitarian formula at all! The first Stephanus edition (1546) would transpose a couple of the words. The final three minor/octavo editions of Beza would add a word. And the Complutensian Polyglot traversed its own unique path.
Now, I readily admit that the variations among the 30 editions of the TR that I consulted are very minor. Most differences are omissions of the Greek article, changing word order for “holy Spirit,” or adding “and” to the list of heavenly witnesses. Yet these differences reflect the likelihood that the Johannine Comma developed over time and actually arose from the Latin text handed down from the Western church.
But the point here is, again, one of stability. It is more than fair to say that the inclusion of the “heavenly witnesses” in this Trinitarian formula is a staple to the TR tradition. Even the small variations among the various TR editions that depart from the common TR reading are extremely minor in terms of meaning and translation. I only include them here to be thorough and to show that the TR is not as uniform as is so often claimed.[9] And like nearly all printed Greek New Testaments, there is development and change over time, with the goal of getting the text right.
Calvin believed this to be the case as he himself likely changed GNTs over time. He would say of this passage’s inclusion, “[I]t is found in the best and most approved copies,”[10] likely meaning printed editions. Some have argued that Calvin was dissatisfied with the 1534 text of Colinaeus (which omitted the Johannine Comma) and would switch to either Erasmus’s 4th edition or Stephanus’s 1546 (first) edition.[11] If that is the case, then Calvin commented on a general form of the Comma Johanneum, but not its final form as found in the Scrivener TR, inconsequential as these earlier editions may differ. Not only that, but he pursued a printed GNT that reflects what he felt was a better text. Should we not also do likewise?
Conclusion
I am the first to admit that a portion of what I have discussed in both part 1 and part 2 is not essential for determining the text of the NT, nor is it essential for interpretation or meaning. On the one hand, typesetting errors and inconsistencies among the TR tradition do not make or break the textual readings of the TR. On the other hand, some of these oddities of the TR tradition of 1 John are essential and do affect meaning. Nevertheless, the goal here is to demonstrate that the printing press being the technological feat that it was, did not perfect the reproduction of the NT. Not immediately, anyhow. It seems to be premature to base one’s view of preservation of Scripture upon a certain textual tradition such as the TR in part because it arose at the same time that the providential technological advancement of the printing press. As good as it was in the beginning, such printing of the GNT needed to be refined.
Nevertheless, what these editions among the TR tradition did produce is nothing short of extraordinary. These editions of the GNT would trailblaze a pathway for the development of future printed editions that we still enjoy today. Their past labors, mistakes, frustrations, and determination to produce what they believed to be the best representation of the text of the NT are our present gains.
In future articles on the TR in 1 John, I intend to move away from printing oddities and switch to textual oddities or strange and uncharacteristic readings of the TR in 1 John. We will also examine some very poor, weakly attested readings of the TR in 1 John.
*Pictures of the TR Tradition are provided from the Basel University’s digital library and CSNTM. They are displayed here for research purposes.
[1] “Sic Paulus Rom 5.8 & sic habet Complutensis editio. Syrus autem interpres legit multo etia apertius, τὴν ἀγάπην αὐτοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν.” The last sentence, Beza appealed to a looser reading followed in the Syriac which translates “his love for us,” which would imply “the love of God.”
[2] See a helpful overview of the Complutensian Polyglot New Testament by Peter M. Head, “10 January 1514: Complutensian Polyglot New Testament,” Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, January 2014, accessed: http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2014/01/10-january-1514-complutensian-polyglot.html. He cited the editors who claimed, “Ordinary copies were not the archetypes for this impression, but very ancient and correct ones; and of such antiquity, that it would be utterly wrong not to own their authority.”
[3] See “1520 Complutensian Polyglot Bible” at https://biblemanuscriptsociety.com/Bible-resources/Early-Bibles/Complutensian-Polyglot. Of these, only 234 and 432 include 1 John.
[4] A third reading listed by the CNTTS apparatus has minuscules 999, 1243, and 1751 reading ουτος.
[5] In the appendix which marks the places where his TR departs from Beza’s major 1598 edition to agree with the KJV, it says, “1 John 1. 5 ἀγγελία] Col. Vulg. (tydynges Tynd.). ἐπαγγελία ceteri omnes. Confer ii. 25 cum iii. 11.” F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press, 1881), 654.
[6] For these terms, consult LSJ’s A Greek-English Lexicon.
[7] For this, see the excellent overview by Elijah Hixson, “The Greek Manuscripts of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8),” Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, January 2020, accessed: http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-greek-manuscripts-of-comma.html.
[8] Parker implied this of the TR, “Authorized by Erasmus, canonized by Stephanus, and deified by Beza, Textus Receptus reigned pre-eminent in the reformed Churches of the sixteenth century.” T. H. L. Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, Second ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), 155.
[9] For another example of this, see my guest article at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog “A Critical Apparatus of the Textus Receptus Tradition,” March 2024, accessed: https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2024/03/guest-post-by-timothy-decker-critical.html.
[10] Calvin’s Commentary at 1 John 5:7.
[11] See Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 151–57. See also John D. Currid, Calvin and the Biblical Languages (Fearn, Scotland: Mentor, 2006), 41–42.
Dr. Timothy Decker is one of the pastors of Trinity Reformed Baptist Church of Roanoke, VA, having joined them in 2018. He holds a B.A. and M.A. biblical studies from Carolina University (formerly Piedmont International University), a Th.M. in New Testament from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Capital Seminary and Graduate School. In his dissertation research, he examined the style of biblical Hebrew poetry in the New Testament. He has presented various papers at academic society meetings and authored numerous articles in several different scholarly journals. He is a member of ETS and IBR. When he is not reading or researching, he enjoys spending time with his wife and four children.
Courses taught at CBTSeminary: Elementary Greek I, Elementary Greek II
