TEXTUAL ODDITIES OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS TRADITION IN 1 JOHN

Part 1: Printing Oddities within the TR Tradition

In text critical discussions, the text of the Textus Receptus (TR) is notorious for its inclusion of the Comma Johanaeum or the Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7–8. In fact, when one thinks of the TR and 1 John, this is primarily (if not exclusively) the text critical passage that is discussed. However, the TR poses several strange oddities in all of John’s first epistle—oddities within its own tradition of development as well as generally strange textual readings among all the MSS tradition of the NT. In this first article, I would like to present strange or odd developments within the TR tradition. In a second article, I plan to present odd and even problematic TR readings.

As revolutionary as the movable type-setting printing press was, in the beginning of the printed editions of the Greek New Testament (GNT), it was not without its flaws. A number of such printer errors appear in the various editions of the TR, or what I call the TR tradition. These few examples might give pause to some who want to rest a great deal of weight upon preservation within the TR tradition due to the correspondent historical development of the printing press.

Typesetter Errors

Within any book’s printing process, printing errors are bound to occur. That is because the human element is still very present. When it comes to the moveable typesetting and printer’s errors of the TR tradition, two examples from 1 John will suffice. I will also throw in one more comical, albeit inconsequential, one from 3 John.

Theodore Beza’s major or folio edition of 1582 (this is his second major/folio edition of a GNT, his first being 1565), struggled a bit. His first printer, Henri Stephanus (the son of the printer/publisher of the prior TR tradition editions, Robert Stephanus), who published Beza’s first three major/folio GNT editions (1565, 1582, and 1588) was well regarded and trusted. However, Beza’s more widely used 1598 edition was taken over by a printer named Vignon. We will see that both printers made errors.

The first typesetter error is found in Beza’s 1582 edition at 1 John 2:17. The error can easily be spotted if we compare it to his earlier 1565 edition (the 1588 ed. has a page break at this verse so is more difficult to notice):

Beza^Maj15821 John 2:17  

Beza^Maj1565 1 John 2:17

The former owner of this 1582 copy (now preserved digitally) clearly recognized and marked the error with the backward-serpentine “S” symbol. The nonsensical reading is one way we know this to be a typesetter’s error. What has happened in the 1582 edition is the 1st line of v. 17 ends with a word break ἐπιθυ-. However, instead of finishing the word by starting the 2^nd line with -μια (as the 1565 ed.) thus completing the word ἐπιθυμία, the next line of the 1582 edition has Θεοῦ. This word should not appear until the start of the 3rd line. In other words, the printer vertically transposed the first word of the 2nd line with the first word of the 3rd line. Horizontal transpositions are quite common in handwritten MSS where the word order is changed. This occurs even within the TR tradition, as 1 John 1:5 either reads αὕτη ἔστιν or ἔστιν αὕτη.[1] However, vertical transpositions are almost uniquely a phenomenon of printing errors. Such is the case with Beza’s folio edition of 1582 at 1 John 2:17.

Sadly, this is not the only printer error in the 1582 edition of Beza. At 1 John 5:9, there is a dittography (a repeating of letters, words, or phrases) previously written or, in this case, printed. The text of Beza’s 1582 edition reads as follows compared to the standard Scrivener 1881 edition of the TR:

Beza^Maj15821 John 5:9

Even an untrained eye can see the final line of the 1582 edition was accidentally repeated.

Now, I am not yet completely convinced that this was a typesetter’s error for at least two reasons. It would seem more likely to be the fault of the printer if the words repeated were lined up, whereas here they are not. Secondly, the ligatures are different (compare the ending of the word υἱοῦ). It could be that the printer was simply following what Beza was instructing and reproduced the line again with different ligature type. However, the most likely explanation for this dittography is that the printer, not realizing he came to the end of the sentence, repeated the final phrase starting with the word μεμαρτύρηκε. And as there is no MS evidence to support such a reading, this best fits the category of a dittography made by a printer.

These errors, however, were not limited to Beza’s 1582 edition. The 1598 edition, which would be used by the KJV translators, also has some nonconsequential printing errors. One that may be a bit humorous is 3 John 11:

Beza^Maj1598 3 John 11

Beza’s new printer, Vignon, has an error at the word “ἀλλὰ” in which the first lambda is inverted. The meaning has not changed, but the print is somewhat humorous.

Beza’s minor/octavo editions did not fare much better. At 1 John 3:1 his first two octavo editions (1565 and 1567) both read ὅτι οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτόν “because it [the world] did not know him.”

Beza^Min1565

Beza^Min1567

However, in his 1580 and 1590 octavo editions, the printer created a non-sensical reading by a slight alteration of one letter, rendering ὅτι ἐκ ἔγνω αὐτόν.

Beza^Min1580

Beza^Min1590      

I say “one letter” because the earlier editions used a ligature that combined the omicron and upsilon (looking like a vertical fish) of the negation “οὐκ” and turned it into an epsilon thus making the preposition “ἐκ,” which is nonsensical and grammatically incorrect. However, the final Octavo edition of 1604 reverted back to the correct spelling:

Beza^Min1604

This seems to be localized to this verse, and these editions, for even the 1580 and 1590 Octavo editions, have printed the correct spelling of οὐκ at 1 John 3:5 and 3:10. This is just a printing error at this one place, and in these editions.

As innovative as moveable type printed editions were, they did not remove the human error in reproduction. However, they greatly reduced it. Of the printing errors here listed, more could be added from other books of the NT and other editions of the TR tradition. However, for sake of space we press on.

Repeated and Multiplying Errors

There is another unique error that I have yet to determine the cause. It is inconsequential in terms of meaning. Even most in the field of text criticism would not give it a second thought. But as I am comparing printed editions of the TR tradition, it is a rather strange phenomenon. In this case, it has to do with the 3^rd person personal pronoun in Greek (often used in the Johannine epistles) and the accenting with the breathing marks (they look like apostrophes over letters).

To demonstrate this error, compare 1 John 2:10 in Erasmus’s 2^nd edition (1519):

Erasmus^2nd 1 John 2:10

There are two examples of the Greek personal pronoun in 1 John 2:10. The first in the picture above is the first word on the second line reading ἁυτοῦ, and the second is the first word on the third line reading ἀυτῳ.[2] Though it is ever so slight, the difference between these words is the “breathing mark” over the alpha upsilon that looks like an apostrophe. In the first instance, the mark is turned right “ ̔ ” whereas the second is turned left “ ̓ ”. In this form of printed Greek, known as minuscule, the rightward turned breathing mark gives the h-sound pronunciation, whereas its leftward turn is to render no h-sound. Therefore, Erasmus displays the first pronoun of 1 John 2:10 as hautou whereas the second is autō. The error here lies in the fact that, as my Greek I students learn, the Greek 3rd person personal pronoun is to have a smooth or leftward turning breathing mark. The text should be ἀυτοῦ autou as it was in his first edition:

Erasmus^1st 1 John 2:10

Therefore, there is an inexplicable occasion for a “rough-breather” at 1 John 2:10 in Erasmus’s 2^nd edition, and it continued to appear this way in his 3^rd, 4^th, and 5^th editions:

Erasmus^5th 1 John 2:10

However, this kind of treatment of the breathing mark to the 3rd person personal pronoun is not unique to Erasmus. Indeed, it not only continued in his later editions, but it becomes far more frequent among others in the TR tradition. So much so, that by the time of Stephanus and Beza’s editions, I began to expect it in my transcriptions.

Stephanus¹⁵⁵⁰ 1 John 2:10

Beza^Maj1598 1 John 2:10

Elzevirs¹⁶³³ 1 John 2:10

And it was not only at 1 John 2:10 either. After Erasmus’s 2nd edition, this error was repeated and multiplied greatly in other places throughout 1 John. For instance, the Beza^Maj1565 (his first folio edition) contained 6 of these breathing mark errors throughout 1 John. His next folio edition of 1580 had increased to 15. Finally, the Elzevirs¹⁶³³ (the one known for first ascribing the term textus recpetus) printed edition contained 19 instances of these breathing mark oddities.

It was so pervasive throughout 1 John that I started wondering if there was a particular rhyme or reason, or perhaps some phonetical rule, of which I was unaware. So far, I have been unable to determine why these printed editions would follow such a strange breathing pattern for the personal pronoun.

On the other hand, the Oxford 1873 TR as well as Scrivener’s updated 1881 edition reverted to the normalized smooth breathers for all of these instances. Even Scrivener’s 1860 rendering of the 1550 edition of Stephanus makes the correction, whereas the Stephanus¹⁵⁵⁰ clearly repeated this error (see the picture above). This may lend further credence to what Jan Krans suggested in his study of the proposed textual emendations by both Erasmus and Beza, that such a cautionary approach was taken to the text, that Beza (and others) were very hesitant to change what had been handed down.[3] This seems to include such strange printing errors, if indeed this is the fault of printers.

To increase confidence that this is a printer error, I examined the MSS of 1 John that Erasmus used for his five different printed editions.[4] All of them were the minuscule cursives and would include breathing marks as well as accents, and all of them correctly rendered 1 John 2:10 with the smooth breathing mark. This increases justification for my hypothesis that it was a printing error that multiplied and repeated overtime.

For Erasmus^1st

GA 1

GA 2815

GA 2816

For Erasmus^2nd

GA 3

For Erasmus^3rd

GA 61

Erasmus would use GA 03 (B) or Codex Vaticanus for his annotations in his 4th and 5th editions. And even though it is majuscule script, the accent and breathing marks are rendered correctly.

GA 03

Summary of Part 1

The advancement of the printing press and moveable type was a tremendous step forward in the preservation and dissemination of Scripture. However, the process did not reach its full maturity immediately. Whether it be spelling errors or vertical transpositions that are almost uniquely restricted to the printed text, the TR tradition was not perfect in every jot or tittle. However, the publishers were refining the process, and by the 17th century, many of these errors were fewer and farther between.

*Pictures of the TR Tradition are provided from the Basel University’s digital library and CSNTM. They are displayed here for research purposes.

**Pictures of NT manuscripts were taken from INTF for research purposes.

[1] The earliest editions in the TR tradition follow the second rendering of ἔστιν αὕτη: Erasmus^{1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th}, Aldine, Gerbelius, Köpfel, Bebelius, Colinaeus, and Sessa.

[2] Erasmus’s first three printed editions typically rendered the breathing and accents marks over words beginning with the diphthongs unusually over the initial vowel rather than the second vowel such as ἀυτῳ rather than αὐτῳ. By the fourth edition, this was no longer practiced.

[3] See for example his statement, “Despite his openness to altering the text, as demonstrated above, his tendency to leave the printed text alone is far more prominent.” Jan Krans, Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament, NTTS, volume 35 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 226.

[4] The list of MSS used by Erasmus comes from Krans, 335–36.

Timothy Decker

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