The Origins of the Textus Receptus: Erasmus and the First Printed Greek Texts
The emergence of the Textus Receptus begins with the advent of the printing press and the intellectual climate of the Renaissance. In 1514, the first printed Greek New Testament appeared as part of the Complutensian Polyglot, commissioned by Cardinal Francisco Ximénez de Cisneros in Spain. However, its publication was delayed, and it was not distributed until 1522. Meanwhile, Desiderius Erasmus, a Dutch scholar and theologian, was invited by printer Johann Froben to produce a printed Greek New Testament. Under considerable time constraints, Erasmus compiled his first edition in 1516, working primarily from five to six late Byzantine minuscule manuscripts, most notably Minuscule 1 and Minuscule 2 from the twelfth century.
Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (sometimes known as Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam) (1466/1469-1536). Dutch Renaissance humanist and a Catholic Christian theologian. Portrait.
Because Erasmus worked quickly and under pressure, the first edition (1516) was filled with typographical errors. Nevertheless, it was the first Greek New Testament to be published and distributed. This text would become the basis of what is now called the Textus Receptus, or “Received Text.”
The Byzantine Basis of Erasmus’s Greek New Testament
The text Erasmus produced was essentially a printed version of the Byzantine textual tradition. This text-type, widely used in the Eastern Church, reflects a recension likely stemming from the work of Lucian of Antioch, an early fourth-century Christian scholar. Jerome, in the preface to his Latin Vulgate Gospels (Patrologia Latina 29, col. 527), attributes to Lucian a major recension of the New Testament. This recension, known as the Syrian or Antiochian text, became popular in the Greek-speaking East.
Lucian’s edition, characterized by conflation, harmonization, and stylistic smoothing, was propagated after the Diocletian persecution (ca. 303 C.E.), especially during the rise of Constantine and the official legalization of Christianity. As new manuscripts were needed across the growing Christian world, the Antiochian text-type gained ascendancy. Over time, this led to the dominance of the Byzantine text, preserved in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts dating from the sixth to the fourteenth century.
Thus, when Erasmus prepared his printed Greek New Testament, he had access primarily to these late Byzantine manuscripts. His work represents a snapshot of the textual form then dominant in the Greek-speaking church but one far removed from the earliest textual witnesses.
The Evolution of the Textus Receptus: Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir Brothers
Following Erasmus’s initial publication, revised editions of his Greek New Testament were issued. A second edition appeared in 1519, correcting many typographical errors. This edition was used by Martin Luther for his 1522 German New Testament and by William Tyndale for his 1525 English New Testament.
Robert Stephanus (Robert Estienne), a French Printer
Subsequent editors and printers issued their own versions of the Greek New Testament based largely on Erasmus’s text. Robert Stephanus (Robert Estienne), a French printer, produced four notable editions, the most significant of which was the third edition of 1550, the editio Regia. This edition was the first to include a critical apparatus, documenting variant readings from fourteen Greek manuscripts and the Complutensian Polyglot.
The fourth edition of Stephanus, printed in Geneva in 1551, introduced verse divisions into the New Testament for the first time—divisions still used in modern editions.
Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor in Geneva, published nine editions of the Greek New Testament between 1565 and 1604. Although Beza had access to earlier manuscripts—such as Codex Bezae (fifth century) and Codex Claromontanus (sixth century)—he largely adhered to the textual form inherited from Erasmus. Beza’s editions were influential, particularly the 1588–89 and 1598 versions, which were consulted by the translators of the King James Version (1611).
Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor in Geneva
The culmination of this tradition was the Elzevir brothers’ edition, published in Leiden in 1624, with a second edition in 1633. The preface to the 1633 edition contains the phrase: Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus—“Therefore you [dear reader] have the text now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted.” From this arose the name Textus Receptus.
The Proliferation and Entrenchment of the Textus Receptus
From Erasmus’s first edition in 1516 to the Elzevirs’ edition in 1633, more than 160 editions of the Greek New Testament were published, most of which were textual derivatives of Erasmus’s work. These editions shaped the trajectory of New Testament translation into vernacular languages across Europe. Nearly all early Protestant Bible translations—German, English, French, Dutch, and others—were based on the Textus Receptus.
The Elzevir Brothers
Despite its wide use, the Textus Receptus contained numerous corruptions and interpolations, many of which stemmed from the Byzantine textual tradition’s centuries of scribal transmission. While many alterations were minor, some significantly affected the meaning of the text.
The Deficiencies of the Textus Receptus
The foundational problem of the Textus Receptus lies in its reliance on late manuscripts. Erasmus’s base texts were produced nearly a millennium after the original autographs. Moreover, when his manuscripts lacked portions of the text—as was the case with the last six verses of Revelation—Erasmus back-translated the missing content from the Latin Vulgate into Greek, creating a Greek text with no manuscript support.
The textual tradition upon which the Textus Receptus is based—the Byzantine—displays characteristics of editorial smoothing, harmonization of Gospel parallels, and conflation of readings. As such, it is not the original text but a later ecclesiastical recension, shaped by liturgical and theological usage.
Although Beza and Stephanus had access to older and more diverse manuscripts, including those with Alexandrian and Western readings, these were seldom utilized because they differed too greatly from the established Byzantine text.
The Shift Toward a Critical Greek Text
By the eighteenth century, the limitations of the Textus Receptus were increasingly recognized. Scholars began to collate a wide range of Greek manuscripts, as well as ancient translations (versions) and patristic quotations. Still, most editors continued to reprint the Textus Receptus with only minor corrections.
The first major break came with Karl Lachmann, who in 1831 applied classical text-critical methodology to the New Testament. Lachmann deliberately rejected the Textus Receptus and sought to reconstruct the text based on early Greek manuscripts and patristic evidence.
Lachmann’s work was followed by that of Constantin von Tischendorf, who produced eight editions of the Greek New Testament, culminating in the Editio Octava (1869–72), a critical edition rich in variant readings.
Later, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort published their edition in 1881, based on early Alexandrian manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Their work was revolutionary, establishing the Alexandrian text-type as the textual basis for critical Greek editions.
The Decline of the Textus Receptus in Modern Textual Scholarship
With the discovery of numerous early papyri and uncial manuscripts from the second to the fourth centuries—such as P66, P75, Codex Vaticanus (B), and Codex Sinaiticus (א)—the deficiencies of the Textus Receptus became even more evident. These older witnesses predate the Byzantine tradition by centuries and reflect a textual form far more consistent with the autographs.
As a result, the Textus Receptus has been replaced in academic and translation work by critically reconstructed texts, such as the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. These editions are based on the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, following the Alexandrian tradition with documentary priority given to early papyri.
Conclusion: The Legacy and Limits of the Textus Receptus
While the Textus Receptus played a central role in the Reformation and shaped the translation of the Bible into many European languages, it must be understood as a late, ecclesiastical text—not a reflection of the original New Testament. Its influence is historical and theological, not textual-critical.
Its roots in the Byzantine tradition, itself a post-recension form of the text, place the Textus Receptus at a distance from the inspired autographs. Modern textual criticism, with its focus on the earliest manuscripts and careful weighing of external evidence, has rightly moved beyond the Textus Receptus. While it holds historical value, the scholarly reconstruction of the original text must rely on earlier and more accurate witnesses preserved in the Alexandrian textual tradition.
EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).
SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW
BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM
BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION
