Questions & Answers

The term "Textus Receptus" (TR) was first used in 1633. It generally refers to the Greek New Testament text that resulted from a process of collating and editing that began with Erasmus' text (first edition in 1516).

You've asked for the "pros," and these can be summed up in one word: precedent. The "Textus Receptus" is the textual basis for both Luther's German Bible and the King James Version. Those who hold these translations in high regard will naturally think highly of the TR as well.

Now for the "cons." A very large number of New Testament manuscripts have come to light since the prestigious Reformation-era translations were made. The "big picture" of manuscript evidence has shown that the TR contained a number of readings that arose relatively late in the history of textual transmission.

None of this evidence casts any doubt on any truth of the Christian faith. Nor is it reason to question whether our spiritual ancestors in the 16th and 17th centuries had the Word of God (they did). But the TR, used alone, clearly does not give us the most precise access possible to the actual words penned by the inspired prophets, evangelists, and apostles (known as the "autographs").

Defenders of the TR essentially argue that God's promise to preserve his Word means that the church in every era must have had a Greek text at its disposal that was identical to the autographs. That simply doesn't follow.

You might try pointing out to a TR defender that the TR is, itself, a product of intensive study and comparison between manuscripts. If we all agree that such study is necessary, why would we arbitrarily decide to base our study on a sample of evidence that is frozen in the 17th century?