Which Textus Receptus Edition Is the “Authentic” One?
The Final Form in the King James Version and Scrivener’s Edition
1. Introduction
For many who adhere to confessional bibliology, the Textus Receptus (often abbreviated “TR”) represents the preserved Greek New Testament used by the Protestant Reformers. But those new to this topic frequently encounter a puzzling reality: multiple printed TR editions exist, each with minor (and occasionally more notable) differences. If the TR is supposedly the providentially preserved text, which printed edition is the “real” or “final” form?
The question becomes more pressing when we recall influential publishers and editors—Erasmus, Robert Stephanus, Theodore Beza, and the Elzevir brothers—all produced slightly different editions of the Greek New Testament during the 16th and 17th centuries. Into this picture comes the work of Edward Freer Hills (1912–1981), a Presbyterian scholar and proponent of confessional bibliology, who offered a distinct perspective: the textual choices made by the translators of the King James Version (KJV) represent the last and most refined stage—“the final winnowing”—of the Textus Receptus tradition.
In this article, we will:
- Trace the historical development of the TR editions.
- Examine the kinds of variations found among them.
- Highlight Edward Freer Hills’ argument that the KJV translators’ choices crystallized the TR’s final form.
- Show how this “final” TR text is presented in the Scrivener edition, available from the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS).
- Consider how confessional bibliologists reconcile multiple editions with the claim that God providentially preserved one “ecclesiastical text.”
By exploring these points, we aim to clarify why confessional bibliology insists that there is, in fact, a stable TR text, even if it manifests in multiple printings, and why so many confessional bibliologists see the KJV as key to identifying that definitive edition.
2. Key Terms and Concepts
- Textus Receptus (TR): A family of printed Greek New Testament texts from the 16th and 17th centuries, culminating in the KJV translators’ underlying text.
- Confessional Bibliology: A perspective asserting that the Masoretic Text (Hebrew) and TR (Greek) together form the providentially preserved Scriptures, particularly endorsed by the Protestant Reformation and its confessions.
- Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzevirs: The major editors/printers of the early Greek New Testament, each contributing to or refining the TR tradition.
- Edward Freer Hills: A 20th-century scholar who championed the KJV as the culmination of the TR process, arguing that its textual basis is the final, providentially guided form.
- Scrivener’s Edition (often called “Scrivener’s TR”): A late 19th-century collation by F.H.A. Scrivener that sought to reproduce the exact Greek text underlying the 1611 King James Version, now published by the Trinitarian Bible Society.
- Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS): An organization dedicated to circulating Scripture in faithful translations, which prints and distributes Scrivener’s TR as the definitive form of the KJV’s Greek text.
Understanding these terms provides a framework for the journey from Erasmus’s first printed Greek New Testament all the way to the finalized text behind the KJV and its modern presentations.
3. Historical Development of the TR: Multiple Editions Emerge
3.1. Erasmus Lays the Foundation
Desiderius Erasmus (1466–1536), a Dutch humanist and scholar, published the first printed Greek New Testament in 1516—though “printed” does not necessarily mean “perfect.” He had at most a handful of Greek manuscripts at his disposal and rushed to meet publication deadlines. For the book of Revelation especially, he lacked a complete Greek manuscript for the final verses and famously back-translated them from the Latin Vulgate.
Erasmus released further editions (1519, 1522, 1527, 1535), each time tinkering with readings as he gained slightly better sources or had more time to correct errors. Although still imperfect by many modern scholarly standards, Erasmus’s work became a significant foundation for later TR editions.
3.2. Stephanus and the Influence of Versification
Robert Stephanus (1503–1559), a printer and scholar in Paris, produced four principal editions between 1546 and 1551. Most notably, his 1550 edition is often referred to in confessional circles as the “editio regia” (royal edition) because of its elegance and careful printing. It also popularized the verse divisions still in use today. Stephanus’s text largely follows Erasmus, yet introduced variant readings from additional manuscripts he consulted.
3.3. Beza’s Refinements
Theodore Beza (1519–1605), John Calvin’s successor in Geneva, edited several Greek New Testament editions between 1565 and 1604. He relied on both Erasmus and Stephanus, sometimes favoring a reading based on his own theological and philological assessments. Beza’s texts played an influential role in shaping the King James Version (1611), as the KJV translators often followed Beza’s readings in debated passages.
3.4. The Elzevirs and the “Textum Receptum”
In 1624, the Dutch printers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir issued another Greek New Testament, based on Stephanus and Beza. Their second edition (1633) contained a publisher’s blurb describing it as the “text now received by all”—“textum… receptum.” This marketing phrase gave rise to the enduring title Textus Receptus. Although the claim was somewhat exaggerated (not everyone used it), it captured the reality that the Elzevir text was broadly accepted across the Protestant world.
By the mid-17th century, there was a recognized “TR family” of Greek New Testaments, but minor variations abounded among Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir. The question soon emerged—and still lingers: Which reading, in places of variation, is truly correct?
4. Variations Within the TR Family
While Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevirs agree on the vast majority of readings, differences do appear, for instance:
- Revelation 22:16–21: Erasmus initially relied on back-translation for the final verses; later editors corrected or altered some words when better manuscripts became available.
- Acts 8:37 (the Ethiopian eunuch’s confession): Some TR editions include this verse; others bracket or omit it.
- Ephesians 3:9 (“dispensation” vs. “fellowship”): Editors waver on whether the Greek word should be “οἰκονομία” (dispensation) or “κοινωνία” (fellowship).
From a purely historical standpoint, no single one of these editions can claim total infallibility—each had editorial choices shaped by the resources at hand. Critics thus ask: How can we say the TR is one authoritative text if it exists in multiple forms?
5. The King James Version as the “Final Winnowing”
Edward Freer Hills, in his influential work The King James Version Defended (among others), addressed this conundrum by advancing a key idea: the textual decisions made by the KJV translators in 1611 effectively represent the final refining or winnowing of the TR tradition. Rather than viewing the TR as fragmented across Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, Hills argued that the KJV translators—being devout scholars with access to these prior editions—harmonized those slight variations.
5.1. Hills’ Theological Premise: Providential Guidance
A hallmark of Hills’ perspective is the conviction that God’s providential preservation extended to the final selection of readings for the KJV. If Erasmus and Stephanus contributed initial building blocks, and Beza contributed mature editorial insight, the KJV translators had the benefit of analyzing all these resources, weighing marginal notes, and judging which reading best reflected the original apostolic text.
Under this view, the KJV’s underlying Greek text emerges as the capstone of a century-long process, superintended by God. Hills believed that while the earliest TR editors did admirable work, it was the King James translators—fortified by communal prayer, scholarly collaboration, and theological conviction—who gave the TR its definitive shape.
5.2. The Language of “Last Winnowing”
When Hills describes the KJV as the “last winnowing” of the TR, he evokes an agricultural metaphor: as grain is threshed and winnowed, the final product is sifted free of impurities or chaff. Erasmus’s edition, in this analogy, could be seen as the initial harvest—necessary, but still containing a few husks. Stephanus and Beza refine it further, removing more imperfections. Finally, the KJV translators gather all the evidence to produce a text free (in Hills’ estimation) of any major textual shortcomings.
In practical terms, this means that if Erasmus and Stephanus differ on a reading, but the KJV translators chose one reading over the other, confessional bibliologists influenced by Hills would see that choice as providentially guided. Hence, the KJV’s textual base becomes, in effect, the “authentic” TR.
6. Scrivener’s Edition: Capturing the KJV Greek Text
If the King James Version is the final expression of the TR, one might ask: Where can we see that exact Greek text in printed form? The 1611 translators did not publish a Greek New Testament, so the full record of their textual decisions was partially implicit. Enter Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener (F.H.A. Scrivener) in the late 19th century.
6.1. Scrivener’s Collation Project
Scrivener (1813–1891) was a biblical scholar who meticulously compared the KJV with various TR editions. His goal was to identify each place where the KJV translators diverged from Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, or the Elzevirs. Then, he produced an edition—commonly called “Scrivener’s TR”—that reconstructs, as precisely as possible, the Greek text underlying the KJV translation decisions.
In instances where the KJV’s wording aligns with Beza but not Stephanus, Scrivener notes it accordingly, ensuring that his text matches how the KJV translators must have rendered the verse. This results in a Greek New Testament that effectively encodes the final form of the TR, as represented by the 1611 King James Bible.
6.2. The Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) Publication
Today, Scrivener’s edition is widely circulated by the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS). They view it as the best representation of the Greek text that shaped the KJV and, by extension, the definitive TR. In confessional bibliology circles, it is often cited as “the text of the Reformation” in its most refined state.
For those who believe in the KJV as the culmination of the TR tradition, owning a copy of Scrivener’s edition is a way to study the precise textual choices the translators made. Edward Freer Hills himself pointed readers toward this edition, reiterating that the KJV represents the final stage of the TR’s development—an idea that resonates with many confessional believers who see the KJV as a uniquely providential translation.
7. Reconciling Multiple Editions with Providential Preservation
Critics’ Objection: “If God preserved the text in the TR, why did Erasmus’s first edition contain mistakes in Revelation? Why do the TR editions differ at all?”
Confessional Bibliology’s Response (in line with Hills’ reasoning):
- Progressive Refinement, Not Instant Inerrancy
- God’s providential work often unfolds gradually. Just as doctrinal clarity on certain theological matters matured over the Church’s history, so too the textual refinement took time—an ongoing process culminating in the KJV.
- Family Resemblance
- All TR editions remain far more similar to each other than to any “eclectic” or “critical” text. From this vantage, the core text is stable, despite small differences in certain verses.
- No Doctrinal Loss
- Proponents emphasize that these editorial variations do not affect major doctrines. God’s hand, they argue, prevented any catastrophic corruption, ensuring that essential truths remained intact across the TR family.
- The KJV as the Final Benchmark
- Once the KJV translators selected a reading, it effectively “sealed” that textual choice. Scrivener’s collation now allows believers to identify precisely which readings the translators used, thus giving us a singular “authentic” text within the broader TR tradition.
8. Edward Freer Hills’ Role in Modern Confessional Bibliology
Edward Freer Hills was among the first 20th-century Protestant scholars to robustly defend the KJV on both theological and textual-critical grounds. While many “KJV-only” arguments have emerged in popular Christian literature, Hills’ work is often highlighted for its scholarly nuance:
- Presuppositional Approach: Hills began with a theological premise: Scripture is God’s Word, and He would preserve it providentially through the Church.
- Historical Continuity: He saw the TR as the text historically used by the majority of believers, culminating in the KJV’s translation for the English-speaking Church.
- Respect for Text-Critical Tools: Hills did not reject textual criticism entirely. Instead, he believed confessional presuppositions should guide the interpretation of evidence, with the KJV representing the apex of that evidence’s refinement.
Hence, Hills became a pivotal figure for those who argue that the KJV and its underlying Greek text form a standard beyond which further “correction” or “revision” is unnecessary, if not theologically perilous.
9. Critiques from Non-Confessional and Critical Scholars
While Edward F. Hills’ perspective is influential in certain conservative or confessional circles, it faces critiques:
- Historical Circularity: Some argue that it’s circular to say “the KJV must have the correct readings because God guided the KJV translators,” especially if the textual decisions are based on limited manuscript evidence from the 16th–17th centuries.
- Older Manuscripts Ignored: Modern textual critics highlight manuscripts discovered after the KJV era (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus) that predate the Byzantine/TR manuscripts by centuries. They contend that these older witnesses challenge some readings found in the TR.
- Editorial Choices = Doctrinal or Cultural Bias?: Critics note the possibility that Reformation-era editors could have been influenced by theological presuppositions or Latin tradition (as in Erasmus’s back-translations) rather than purely Greek manuscript evidence.
In response, confessional bibliologists and Hills-inspired scholars maintain that newer manuscript finds do not necessarily trump centuries of ecclesiastical usage, and that “older” does not automatically mean “more accurate.” They also cite the consistent theological content of the TR-based tradition as evidence of God’s providence.
10. Implications for Modern Readers and Churches
Choosing a Greek Text:
- Many confessional pastors, seminary professors, and laypersons choose to teach or study from Scrivener’s TR because they see it as best reflecting the final winnowed form used by the KJV.
- They do not necessarily disregard textual criticism but approach it through the lens of providential preservation, emphasizing historical continuity over purely “scientific” or “eclectic” methods.
Confidence in the KJV:
- Believers influenced by Hills’ thesis often exhibit high confidence in the KJV, viewing it not merely as a good translation but as a culminating product of Reformation scholarship.
- This stance can, at times, set them apart from broader evangelicalism, which generally uses translations (like the ESV or NIV) based on modern critical editions (Nestle-Aland or UBS).
Dialogue with Broader Scholarship:
- While some confessional bibliologists remain skeptical of modern textual criticism, others attempt a “bridge” approach—acknowledging older manuscripts while upholding the KJV text as providential.
- This dialogue remains ongoing, with each side bringing its historical, theological, and methodological convictions to the table.
11. Conclusion
Which edition of the TR is truly the authentic or preserved one? From a confessional bibliology standpoint—strongly influenced by Edward Freer Hills—the final answer is found in the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. While Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and others contributed to the development of the TR, the KJV translators sifted through those variations and produced what Hills calls the “last winnowing” of the text. The result, preserved for modern readers in Scrivener’s edition (published by the Trinitarian Bible Society), embodies the definitive form of the TR.
This perspective resolves the dilemma of multiple TR editions by asserting that the entire Reformation era, culminating in the KJV, was part of God’s providential plan. Rather than viewing textual history as chaotic or indefinite, confessional bibliologists see continuity and refinement—imperfections gave way to a final form in 1611. Modern believers can thus open the Scrivener TR and say: “These are the precise Greek readings that shaped the King James Version’s translation decisions.”
Of course, this conclusion is not universally accepted. Critics argue that textual history is more complex and that newly discovered manuscripts should be weighed. Yet for those who embrace Edward Freer Hills’ thesis of providential preservation, the multiplicity of earlier TR editions is not a problem—it is simply the necessary lead-up to a final, authoritative text that continues to shape confessional Protestant communities worldwide.
12. Recommended Resources
- Edward Freer Hills, The King James Version Defended: Hills’ seminal work outlining his presuppositional apologetic for the KJV and the TR as God’s preserved text.
- F.H.A. Scrivener, The New Testament in Greek According to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version: Commonly called “Scrivener’s TR,” it reconstructs the Greek text behind the KJV’s final choices. Available through the Trinitarian Bible Society.
- Theodore P. Letis, The Ecclesiastical Text: Provides broader historical arguments for why the Reformation-era text should be considered the Church’s recognized New Testament.
- Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context: Though not exclusively about textual issues, offers insight into how confessions shaped Protestant views of Scripture’s preservation.
- Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (from a modern critical standpoint): Showcases how eclectic scholarship approaches manuscript evidence outside the TR tradition.
Engaging these materials will deepen one’s grasp of how Edward Freer Hills and others in confessional bibliology reconcile multiple historical TR editions under the belief that the KJV’s textual decisions represent the capstone of God’s providential preservation. For those seeking the “final” TR, Scrivener’s edition remains the go-to resource, crystallizing the text that guided the translators of the King James Version and, in the eyes of many, the Church’s final winnowing of the Reformation Greek New Testament.
